Your Comments On...

Another Way

THE SOLUTION TO THE ENERGY CRISIS turns out to be, in part, mood lighting. You go with one gentle bulb, a 10-watt number that shoos away enough of the darkness to keep everyone at the table identifiable. We're having a delicious, if arguably dim, meal on a pleasant summer evening at a place called...
- By Joel Achenbach

Comments

With the phrase “7,000 watts per day” a watt is a unit of power, i.e., a rate of energy use author Joel Achenbach demonstrates his ignorance about electricity. And the calculation that burning a gallon of gasoline weighing 6.13 pounds puts 19.55 pounds of carbon into the atmosphere? Well, it seems his knowledge of chemistry is pretty rusty as well: a gallon gasoline only contains 5.16 pounds of carbon. The “1,800 watts” that one tenant’s computer consumes—no PC on the market takes that much power—suggests that once again Mr. Achenbach has been sloppy with his facts. The question Mr. Achenbach asks concerning energy use—“How should we live?”—is a critical one. But the fact that these basic errors eluded not only Mr. Achenbach but also the Post’s editorial staff suggests that reducing the layman’s ignorance about the subject must be a key part of America’s answer.

By Gary.Heiligman | Nov 19, 2006 11:17:34 AM | Request Removal

Some of Gary.Heiligman’s comments got a bit lost, so I will reiterate my own thoughts that are much the same. By emphasizing a bunch of eccentrics, Achenbach has taken a critical issue, the western world’s profligate waste of energy, and to some extent trivialized it, by equating energy savings with the austere lifestyle of these nuts. The message to most people is “saving energy requires living in a backward way, might as well forget about it”. To paraphrase C.S.Lewis “what do they teach you in schools these days”? A gallon of gas weighs 6.25 pounds. Gasoline is a mixture of different sized hydrocarbons, but if we assume it is octane, C8H18, then 84 of the weight of the gasoline is carbon, and the remainder is hydrogen. Thus a gallon of gas contains 5.25 pounds of carbon. Unless there is some alchemy in the process, there is no way to get the 19.55 pound figure you cite. That being said, it is sobering for me to realize that my 450 mile car ride will emit 100 pounds of carbon. Ouch! Hugely important issue, good concept, uneven execution.

By cprussin | Nov 19, 2006 12:24:35 PM | Request Removal

I disagree with cprussin -- Achenbach is not trivializing the issue. This is the issue with modern people accustomed to a certain lifestyle including myself -- thinking vs action. So we realize that our 450 mile car rides will emit 100 pounds of carbon. Good for us. I doubt you or I will actually *do* anything about it. These people are doing instead of saying -- they are in a way like artists creating studies for an important work. The work they are studying with their actions, not their thoughts is sustainability, and I think you can look at what they are doing in the same way -- as incomplete and rough, but nonetheless vital to the final product. They themselves admit that what they are doing is not the future of sustainability. Achenbach is simply using their experiment as a mirror to hold up to the rest of us to illustrate a point.

By matt_rauls | Nov 19, 2006 2:25:30 PM | Request Removal

not every solution needs to be an exaggerated response to the obvious. Reston was defined as a community that people could experience all of life within...and walk to work. Urban planning, as well as suburban planning can be effective and fun. Portland Oregon is safe, urban, walkable, and salmon spawn in the Willamette river that runs through the center of it....and Bald Eagles fly within a 10 minute kayak trip from the Burnside Bridge that straddles that river. Good life is available to those that do more than pretend to care about each other whilst stifling free thought. but you know that, its just not something that you are good at...being criticized.

By a.monsster | Nov 19, 2006 4:28:54 PM | Request Removal

Ive replaced most of my bulbs with energy efficient ones, and one day when I buy a house again, I plan on covering it with solar panels- there have been amazing breakthroughs, but I havent seen them hit the market for some reason... and potentially installing a wind turbine. I read we have the technology to make a material thats thinner than paper, stronger than steel, transparent, and it acts as a solar panel- why not coat EVERYTHING with this stuff? I read its relatively cheap to produce too! Make cars, planes, houses, roofs, windows, armor- anything out of this stuff with varying thickness... that would put a dent in the energy crisis- AND it would increase safety!

By falcon_01 | Nov 20, 2006 9:32:55 AM | Request Removal

I agree that urban planning is an effective solution to the problem of excess energy useage. Good urban planning and an energy conscious city can also foster good habits in children. If we show children in elementary school or younger that recycling and energy conservation is something to be valued, these actions will be ingrained in their everyday lives and these actions will be part of their lives through adulthood. The solution cannot only lie in convincing the majority of America that their gas guzzling, energy consuming material bound lifestyles are excessive, we have to teach kids from the beginning that they live in one world community that requires everyone to cooperate in order for it to be sustained.

By christine.gunn | Nov 20, 2006 9:47:25 AM | Request Removal

This is a great article. Id really like to visit earthaven now. Their tourism will probably increase due to this article. I am a big fan of one solution to the environmental costs of our high energy use that is discussed in the article --- a carbon tax on all energy purchases. This would reward people who conserve energy and penalize those who don�t. An income tax would be the more conventional option, but that would apply to everyone, regardless of how much of the problem you are causing. A use tax on electric, gas, oil, propane, etc, would be a great solution. All of those funds should then go for public education about conservation, reforestation forest protection, and R D on sustainable energy. I listed RD last here because I�ve read that we know enough now to live sustainably, if only it would be applied large-scale. If only people would do simple things like turn off lights in empty rooms porches, unplug unused appliances, and drive less, the world would be so much better. Motion lights are a great solution that need to be used much much more widely. Why can�t everyone�s front porch light for those who insist on having those annoying energy monsters be motion activated? And hallway lights in apartment buildings. And even streetlights in parking lots. That would allow them to serve their purpose perfectly, without being shameful wastes of resources.

By ellocin1 | Nov 20, 2006 1:33:06 PM | Request Removal

1 2 Next »