Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP)
18 Nov 08 | Commentary, Conservation, EnvironmentMost HEAP (programs) are designed purchase heating fuel for those who can’t afford to buy it on their own.
To this, we should all say “Thanks, but no thanks.”
On the surface, it seems like a really good idea. After all, nobody wants to decide between heating and eating. No reasonable person would want to see somebody freezing to death. Low income families who can least afford to invest in energy conservation are particularly dependent on HEAP. This situation just perpetuates the cycle. Many low income families are renters, they cannot afford to do energy saving improvements to the dwelling that they occupy. Since the land lord is not incurring the utility expenses, there is little incentive for them to take any action.
HEAP should be geared toward energy efficiency improvements, not just paying for oil, electric, or gas. Land lords need to be encouraged to retrofit older buildings with energy efficient windows and doors, adding insulation, installing energy efficient lighting and heating equipment. There are millions of old buildings in the US that could use upgrades, the completion of which would save enormous amounts of energy annually. Those types of improvements will net the biggest bang for a buck. Instead of buying oil for one season, the HEAP money will improve the conditions inside the building for as long as it is standing.
It is really nice to see the fancy new Zero Energy houses, that is the future. At the same time, existing structures are, more than likely, not going to be replaced any time soon. Most older structures can be made reasonably energy efficient at some expense. This is a quick list of energy saving items that will quickly pay for themselves:
- Perhaps the easiest thing to do is to add blown in cellulose insulation to the attic. The material for a 1500 Square Foot attic (to R-49) costs about $850.00. Installation varies, but it should not be more than $4-500.
- Caulking, weather stripping and sealing. Easy to do, should cost about $1-200 tops.
- Adding blown in cellulose insulation to walls. More difficult than attic insulating as often access holes need to be drilled in the walls. Material costs depend on the size of the house. Total job costs between $4-7,000. Also, if the house was previously insulated with blown in cellulose, the insulation has a tenancy to settle, so it may need to be “topped off”
- Replacement doors and windows. Depending on the number and size of the windows and doors, can range from $4-15,000.
- Replacement of older furnaces and boilers. Most furnaces over 20 years old are inefficient by today’s standards. Replacement can save quite a bit of money on heating fuel costs. Usually between $3-6,000 depending on size and make of new equipment.
- Installation of energy saving devices such as programmable thermostats, out door temperature resets for boilers, temperature controlled steam vents for steam radiators, etc. These costs vary, but often the device will pay for itself within a year or two.
In addition to the tenants saving money on heating, the property owner will increase the value of the rental property by having a more energy efficient building. In short, these energy saving upgrades will be a much wiser investment than simply buying oil.
Related posts
Tags: energy efficiency, heating
Greenwashing Coal
16 Oct 08 | Commentary, EnvironmentWe have a serious energy problem our hands. I fear it will get worse before it gets better. We may need to build more coal fired electric plants to meet future demands for energy, especially if we migrate to electric vehicles. Hey, that electricity has to come from somewhere. Unfortunately, solar electric, either by harnessing heat to make steam or photovoltaics, is still a long way from being able to fill that demand.
To bridge that gap, we have but two choices, nuclear or coal. I am not sure what the lesser of those two evils are. That being said, please don’t tell me that coal is clean.
Coal is anything but clean; from its extraction to its final use, coal is dirty. From the mountain top removal sites in West Virgina, where environmental damage is almost indescribable, to the electric generation station billowing out not just CO2, but Sulfur Dioxide, Nitric oxides, Mercury, Uranium, Cesium and other heavy metals, the damage to the environment is nearly incalculable.
Ask the residents of the West Virgina coal region whether they are prospering along with the companies that mine the coal. Ask anyone living down wind from a coal fired power plant how they feel on a day to day basis. Look at the environmental record of both the coal producers and the power producers. Is this the kind of behavior we want to reward?
Somewhere along the line, somebody decided that all business was about greed. Being the good consumers that we are, we happy citizens followed right along and made our personal lives about money. After all, coal is cheap, the energy produced by coal is cheap, therefore it must be good.
There are, indeed, new technologies that greatly reduce the emissions of coal fired electrical power plants. These include things like scrubbers to remove nitric and sulfur compounds, CO2 capture and sequestration. These newer technologies are not normally retrofitted to older facilities. The average life span of a coal fired power plant is anywhere from 30 to 50 years. The plants that were previously built will continue to spew pollutants for years to come.
Not everything is about money. There are quality of life issues as well. Even if you live hundreds of miles away from any coal mines or power plants, eventually, the environmental damage will be so great that you will be effected.
Related posts
Tags: big coal, clean coal
Ten Senators I would like to Thank
06 Aug 08 | CommentaryFinally, there seems to be a few people who are willing to compromise on an energy plan. It may not be perfect, but it is a thousand times better than what we have right now. For almost a year now, Republican Senators have been blocking the extension of the renewable energy tax credits. For about a month, the Democrats have been blocking any action on new off shore drilling. Both sides have been pointing fingers and other blaming each other for the current and looming energy crisis that we now face.
Even Paris Hilton came up with a better plan than the Bush/Cheney response, which seems to be somewhat muted. Paris Hilton for God’s sake.
Finally, 10 Senators, Democratic and Republican, came together to form a plan. The major aspects include:
- Expanding drilling opportunities off the East coast and Gulf of Mexico, which pleases Republicans
- Keeping a ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, a concession to Democrats
- Repealing a tax break for oil companies that Democrats have long called for
- Putting billions toward producing more alternative-fuel vehicles, in part paid for by the oil and gas industry
I don’t see any mention of extending the renewable energy credits in there, perhaps it is something they are still working on. In any case, at least they are trying to do something. Who are the ten Senators I’d like to Thank? They are these:
- Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota
- Saxby Chambliss, R-Georgia
- ohn Thune, R-South Dakota
- Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina
- Blanche Lincoln, D-Arkansas
- Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana
- Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia
- Bob Corker, R-Tennessee
- Mark Pryor, D-Arkansas
- Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska.
Thank you for caring and taking a stand, one that may be unpopular with your party and perhaps your constituents, but none the less, something that needs to be done.
Related posts
Tags: Commentary
The Truth about Offshore Oil Drilling
04 Aug 08 | Commentary, Conservation, EnvironmentYou have been hearing all sorts of things about drilling for oil offshore. The White House insists that it is the answer to at least some of our energy problems. Various news organizations have put out some interesting, if not slightly contrary and confusing stories on the subject.
I thought I’d boil it down to U.S. product vs. U.S. consumption.
Oil is a world wide market commodity, which means just because it was produced in the U.S. doesn’t mean it will be used here. Think of it as a huge jug with a bunch of straws stuck in it. Everyone sucks out what they need and then pays for it. That being said, I am going to analyze this as if it where only a U.S. problem, e.g. all oil produced, including the new offshore oil, will only be used in the U.S.
The offshore oil facts:
- The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proven non-producing reserves are 5.2 billion barrels (5,147,000,000) of oil. Some estimates show about 18 billion barrels (18,000,000,000) of recoverable oil in the offshore areas currently closed to drilling. Other estimates are much higher, about 78 billion barrels. For sake of argument, we will use The President’s numbers (18 billion).
- The U.S. currently uses 20.68 million barrels (20,680,000) of oil per day. This is projected to rise at 1.4% per year (source: DOE).
- The U.S. currently produces 5.064 million barrels (5,064,000) of oil per day. This is decreasing by about 1% per year (source: DOE)
- At current use rates, drilling in the offshore areas currently closed would provide about 2.4 years of oil (18,000,000,000 bl ÷ 20,680,000 bl/day = 870.4 days or 2.4 years ).
- It will take at least 10 years to bring the first oil well on line, by that time we will be using 23.77 million barrels per day and producing 4.58 million barrels per day. By this math, the new reserve could supply 938 days (18,000,000,000 bl ÷ (23,770,000 bl/day - 4,580,000 bl/day = 19,190,000 bl/day) = 938 days) or ~2.6 years of oil including current production.
Any way you slice it, clearly we have a problem. Drilling in offshore areas will give us 2.6 years of oil. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is though to contain about 10.4 billion barrels of oil. If drilling were allowed there, it would add 503 days (~1.4 years) to our oil supply.
Thus, the total Bush energy plan would add ~4 years of crude oil to our dwindling supply. Clearly not a long term plan. Even if we allow for reduced consumption due to higher prices, the outlook does not look good. During the first part of 2008, gasoline usage dropped by 1% over the same period in 2007. Overall demand for light sweat crude fell by about the same amount. For all the hullabaloo about high prices, not much of a dent.
Start thinking about this, plan ahead and be prepared. Perhaps nothing bad will happen, perhaps somehow energy use will be properly managed and everything will be okay…
Related posts
Tags: energy costs, peak oil
Nice try big guy
19 Jun 08 | CommentaryThe oil companies are a little concerned these days. Oh, they are not worried that Congress is going to yank the rug out from under them, that is impossible. No, they are more concerned that they may be pricing themselves out of a customer.
As more and more people get fed up with high prices and shift to renewable energy, the oil companies will loose business. Not too much at first, it will take a while for momentum to build, but eventually oil will become the nation’s second choice for energy. This has the various boards of directors concerned, what with all the talk of peak oil production, limited reserves, high demand, limited refineries, one might think that we are running out of oil. As oil companies go, that perception is dangerous and bad for business.
It is no surprise to me that now President Bush proposes removing the ban on off shore drilling all along the US continental shelf. Everyone knows that Mr. Bush is an oil man at heart and it is no shock when he has repeatedly spoken of drilling in ANWR. The off shore drilling is a change, or as the talking heads on the TV say, a “Flip Flop.”
This, according to Mr. Bush and other pro oil analysts, would lower gas prices even if supplies were not immediately increased. Most others say it would make little or no difference, especially in the price of motor fuel. I am more inclined to believe the latter.
What off shore drill will accomplish:
- Increase supply of oil on the world wide market enough to barely meet expected demand increase, thus have no effect on current prices. (US DOE study, impacts of increased access…)
- Continue the current Oil Economy for a few more years leading to more oil addiction.
- Make the large oil companies and their executives very, very wealthy.
- Do nothing to mitigate the possible environmental effects of burning fossil fuels.
It is interesting that the US Department of Energy refutes Mr. Bush’s claim of lower gas prices. Perhaps they didn’t get the memo…
We have been addicted to cheap energy for a long, long time. The party is over and now it is time for a little pain. Pain, as it turns out, is good in some cases. It encourages changes in behavior, leads to innovation and advances in technology. It is good that this is happening now, like this, while we still have energy resources to effect change, rather than having the proverbial tank run dry. High oil prices are good for us, we just don’t know it yet.
Update: This article says it much better than I ever could: The misguided message of the addict-and-chief.