Chico, Sustainable

Yet again, this weekend anyone living south of Bidwell Park will be able to hear the sound of carbon footprints (footsteps?) echoing from the Silver Dollar Speedway.

Yep, it's sprint car season.

How many people would have to bike to the fairgrounds to offset the carbon footprint of an evening of sprint car racing?

How many people would have to take a vow of silence for a week to offset the noise pollution?

Call me "not from a NASCAR state," but I just don't understand the "thrill" of watching a bunch of silly-looking over-sized go-carts making continuous left turns.

Chico has a diversity of people-powered vehicles, why not race them? I would pay to see a no-holds-barred recumbent bicycle race. They could even throw in a couple of pedicabs to spice things up. Like the chariot scene in Ben Hur, but Chico style.

Posted by jmiller at 07:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Back in November I wrote that a person who normally averages 24 miles per gallon could potentially improve that to 27 mpg by lowering one's speed 5 mph on the highway and by accelerating gradually from stops, This increase in fuel efficiency would be worth about $5.00 over 300 miles of driving.

For SUV drivers, an increase from 18 mpg to 21 mpg would result in more than $8.00 saved over 300 miles.

That was at $3.40/gallon. Now that gas is just reaching $4.00/gallon, I just wanted to update you.

At $4.00/gallon, an improvement in fuel efficiency from 24 mpg to 27 mpg is now worth $5.60 for every 300 miles of driving.

An improvement from 18 mpg to 21 mpg is now worth $9.60.

Slow down on the highway. Mellow on the acceleration. Burn less fuel. Save some money.

Posted by jmiller at 08:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

We recently got our house assessed of solar panels. I had picked up a flyer from AES (Alternative Energy Systems) at last spring’s Home, Garden, and Antique Show at the Silver Dollar Fairgrounds, and this was a free service that they offered.

Our roof provides great exposure for solar, but there is one problem. It is true that the proposed $9,867 system would lower our electricity bill by 86%. However, our present energy costs are pretty low to begin with (we have been averaging $56/month on electricity since purchasing our house), so it would likely take up to 16 years to recoup our investment cost. The Catch-22 is that it would take even longer if we conserved even more energy.

On the plus side, adding solar panels will likely increase the value of our house (which is good, provided we intend to sell it someday), and also makes a statement that we support solar technology and clean energy.

However, an argument can be made that it makes more economic sense to integrate more energy-saving practices in my home and spend, say, $867 to purchase more low energy-use devices, such as compact fluorescent light bulbs or improved insulation materials, be it better windowblinds to reduce summer heat or weatherstripping to keep out the December chill. The remaining $9,000 that would have been spent on solar panels could instead be invested in some other manner over the next decade and a half.

Another thing to keep in mind is that PG&E itself is continuing to add to “clean” energy technologies to the grid such as solar and wind (currently 12% of PG&E’s power is from renewable sources, according to their website), though one needs to ask, is their pace fast enough for my conscience?

Posted by jmiller at 06:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Wet laundry, hot weather, a phone with a headset, and friends and family to call are a winning combination. Let me explain.

Time, sadly, is a nonrenewable resource. So, if you have the capability to do two things at once, then you are being sustainable. Ergo, if you can find something mindless and productive to do while you are talking on the phone, you are doing pretty good.

My wife’s mindless chore of choice is hanging laundry (my job is doing the dishes). Not that we don’t have a dryer, its just that on a 95 degree day it seems that our back patio heats up to more like 105. Most hung clothes are dry in less than 20 minutes, much faster than using the dryer, not to mention that the capacity of our clothesline is more than that of the dryer. This method uses less energy too. And of course, my wife gets to use the opportunity to catch up with friends and relatives on the other side of the country.

And just to provide full disclosure, once the clothes are dry, we do toss them into the dryer for 6 minutes (no heat) to fluff things up a bit.

Posted by jmiller at 11:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Our air conditioner is set to 81 degrees, and we are pretty happy with it. In fact, these days when I walk into a supermarket or movie theater, I feel downright chilled.

It also helps that on a typical hot Chico afternoon the temperature in our house is consistently 13-15 degrees cooler than the outside temperature, even without the air conditioner on.

Our house isn't any special icon of insulation and passive solar design. The walls have whatever insulation they were using in 1959, and the largest trees on our land are on the east side of the house, which doesn't really serve to benefit us in terms of shade (though our neighbors on that side have commented how they really appreciate our redwoods). The land immediately west of our house is a vacant, barren chunk of treeless dirt, and sadly our house sits almost right on the property line.

To make things even more fun, our exterior walls are a heat-absorbent shade of dark brown.

However, we do have three things working in our favor: Morning temperatures that are typically 30 degrees cooler than in the afternoon, a whole house fan, and R-38 insulation in our attic (blown-in recycled fiberglass).

Here is how we manage the temperature so that we stay cool in the summer while minimizing energy use:

August 31, 5 p.m. : Today the temperature hit 100 degrees outside. When I got home this afternoon, the temperature inside the house was 87 degrees, (our hottest indoor reading of the summer). Enjoying the 13 degree difference (I had just been on my bike for a 20-minute commute), I was able to turn on a ceiling fan and do chores for a half hour before turning on the air conditioner.

10:30 p.m.: The temperature finally dropped below 81 degrees, which is our signal to turn off the air conditioner, open the windows, and turn on the whole house fan. On a hot day like today the air conditioner will be on for about 4-6 hours (assuming we are home, otherwise we leave it off). Our whole house fan is on a timer, we usually set it for an hour. By the time it shuts off we are sound asleep.

6:00 a.m.: By the time the alarm goes off the temperature inside the house has dropped to 75-79 degrees, while the outside temperature is 65-70. Now is when the whole house fan is most effective. The fan pulls the warmer air from the house up into the attic, while at the same time the cool air from outside rushes in to fill the void. We have seen the temperature in the house drop as much as 5 degrees in an hour in this manner, making it both cheaper and more energy efficient than the air conditioner, which can take twice as long to achieve the same result. Generally speaking, it requires five times as much energy to run an air conditioner as it does a whole house fan.

7:45 a.m.: The last thing we do before leaving the house for day at around is turn off the whole house fan and close all the windows and blinds. This, combined with the attic insulation, helps keep the cool air in the house even as the temperature rises outside. By afternoon, the outside temperature will have climbed 30 degrees, while inside it will climb only about 10-15 degrees.

Next Steps:

--Our house has a concrete patio right by our bedroom (which has a west-facing sliding glass door), which absorbs heat during the day and takes a long time to cool off at night. We are plotting the best way to remedy this situation, through a combination of removing some or all of the concrete and replacing it with plants, adding some sort of shade structure or awning, perhaps in association with vining plants, and planting shade-giving trees (deciduous trees would be favorable, as in the winter months their bare branches would let the sun through, allowing us to save a bit on heating).

--Two of our windows are lacking sufficient blinds to keep out the sunlight.

--Though it is not cost effective to bust open the walls or floors solely to add insulation, in the event that a project does require us to expose large sections of our home, adding wall insulation will be something that we seriously consider.

--We would like to meet the owners of the land adjacent to ours (long story) to see if they might be interested in planting a tree or two (perhaps with some assistance from us) to help shade our house.

Full Disclosure: When we moved in we increased our attic insulation from R-19 to R-38 at a cost of $840 for 1680 square feet.

Posted by jmiller at 02:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I may be one of the few people in Chico to own (and use!) a human-powered lawnmower, more commonly called a “push lawnmower” or a “reel lawnmower.” Let me just state that I am not a big fan of lawns in the first place (I will explain why in a later post). I have two (a front and a back), and am looking to downsize to one in the upcoming months. But I say, if you are going to mow, do it old school. Just like the classic-looking Schwinn bikes, I think reel lawnmowers need to make a comeback.

I scored mine for free from a neighbor. Here’s what I like about it: It is small and stores easily, it does the job (it takes me about 20 minutes to trim 2000 square feet of lawn), it's easy to fix and maintain, I don't need earplugs or a face mask when I use it, and best of all it runs on good old-fashioned calories, which I burn a-plenty during my once-a-week, gym-free, mowing workout. I leave the trimmings on the lawn, known as "grass-cycling," which allows the clippings to quickly decompose and returns the nutrients to the soil naturally.

Yes, I am sure a gas-powered mower could do the job a bit faster, but for me they are a notch below leaf-blowers in the “things I hate” category. In addition to air pollution, noise pollution, and all of the issues associated with using fossil fuel, I find that gas-powered lawnmowers stink, leak, break, can be hard to start, expensive to buy, difficult to fix, and a pain to maintain. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the typical gas-powered lawnmower running for one hour emits the same amount of pollutants as 8 new cars driving at 55 mph for the same amount of time. The EPA estimates that traditional gas-powered lawnmowers are responsible for 5% of the nation's air pollution. The reason? Unlike a car, lawnmowers lack the benefits of a catalytic converter and other emission-reducing devices.

If you can’t borrow one from a neighbor, I have seen them new at Colliers for less than $200, though I would wager you could find one at one of Chico’s fine second-hand stores for less than half that.

Posted by jmiller at 08:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

My kitchen glows at night. There is a green glow from the stove clock, a red glow from the microwave clock, and a blue glow from the stereo clock. This means that these appliances are using energy even when not "on," what energy experts call "phantom loads." The same can be said of television sets, DVD players, and computer printers that are plugged in and in standby mode or that have lights or "instant on" features. Phantom loads account for 2%-8% of household electricity use. According to a study by Home Power magazine, the total phantom load in the United States could provide enough power to handle the combined electricity needs of Vietnam, Peru, and Greece.

In order to fully eliminate the phantom load, one must cut all power entirely to these appliances when they are not in use. I have read that this would translate into an actual cost savings of $2-$4 per year per appliance.

So what we have is the dilemma of balancing what will save energy versus what is worth the effort. Let's just take the microwave, for example. There are three ways to shut it down entirely: 1) convert the outlet into a light switch or a motion sensor (which requires time, money, and for me, the possibility of electrocuting myself), 2) plug the microwave into a power strip (which requires money to purchase the strip as well as the use of precious counter space), or 3) unplug the unit each time you are not using it, and replug it when you need it (which takes time and is just plain annoying).

Say there are 7 appliances like this in your house that suck energy all the time, even when they are "off." The question is, is the time and effort that would be required to figure out how to entirely shut down power to each one be worth $25/year (plus the environmental benefits of saving energy)? I am still debating this one myself, and I will get back to you when I come up with an answer.

Posted by jmiller at 08:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)