Every month our president, Morris Kafka, writes a column for the George Street Coop. We reprint them here, with the most recent ones at the top. You can leave comments here (first you must register, then login), or you can contact the author directly: m.kafka@verizon.net.
========================================================
Keep cool, save cold cash
By Morris Kafka
The following was compiled from the PSE&G website.
Reducing home energy use can provide significant long-term financial benefits. The typical U.S. household spends $1,000-$2,000 per year on energy bills. In addition to saving money, lowering energy consumption can help to protect the environment. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the residential sector makes up about 18% of total greenhouse gas emissions, mostly related to home energy use. Reducing home energy consumption can reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions and lower the risk of climate change.
Today’s most efficient air conditioners use 30%-50% less energy to produce the same amount of cooling as systems from the late 1970s, according to the Department of Energy. Even if your unit is only ten years old, you may save 20%-40% on your cooling bills. While replacing an older unit with a newer, energy efficient model may involve some significant upfront costs, you can enjoy a sizable return on your investment over time in lower energy bills while doing your part to reduce energy usage and improve the environment.
Finding the right system. When choosing a new air conditioner, look for a model that is Energy Star® rated. Energy Star® is a program sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that tests and certifies energy efficient appliances and equipment. Energy Star®- qualified central air conditioners have a higher seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) than standard units and may be up to 25% more efficient. SEER indicates the total cooling output of an air conditioning unit divided by the amount of electricity it requires When you’re shopping for a new refrigerator, stove, or dishwasher and you’re on a budget, the most cost effective strategy is to look for the product with the lowest sticker price, right? Not necessarily. Home appliance costs include not only the initial purchase price, but also costs for repair, maintenance, and operation.
To figure out how much an appliance might cost you over its lifetime, you have to consider each of these. The appliance with the lowest sticker price or the best repair record may not necessarily be the best choice. Operational costs are often the largest out-of-pocket expense for a home appliance. Energy efficiency, then, should be an important factor when considering the purchase of any new appliance. The more energy efficient an appliance is, the less it costs to run, and the lower your utility bills. For example, replacing an older dishwasher with a new, energy efficient model can save an average of $30 per year on your energy bill. Using less energy is good for the environment, too; it can reduce air pollution and help conserve natural resources. The shopping strategy below (offered by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission) will help you to find the most energy efficient and cost effective appliances available.
Select the size and style. Measure the space the appliance will occupy to be sure your new purchase will fit. Make sure that you’ll have enough room to open the door or lid fully and enough clearance for ventilation. This may help you narrow your choices as you settle on the best capacity and style.
Know where to shop. Appliance outlets, electronics stores, and local retailers carry different brands and models. Dealers also sell appliances through print catalogs and the Internet.
Compare performance of different brands and models. Ask to see the manufacturer’s product literature. Decide which features are important to you. Ask questions about how the different models operate: Are they noisy? What safety features do they have? What about repair histories? How much water do they use? How energy efficient are they?
Estimate how much the appliance will cost to operate. The more energy an appliance uses, the more it will cost to run. Consult the EnergyGuide label to compare the energy use of different models. The difference on your monthly utility bill can be significant, especially when considered over the ten- to twenty- year life of the appliance. You could save money over the long run by choosing a model that’s more energy efficient, even if the purchase price is higher. Ask your salesperson about cash rebates, low-interest loans or other incentive programs in your area for energy-efficient product purchases-and how you can qualify.
And now for some interesting “Freezer Facts”: Chest freezers are 10% to 25% more efficient than upright, front-loading freezers. Manual defrost freezer models actually consume 35%-40% less energy than comparable automatic defrost freezers, as long as periodic defrosting keeps the ice build-up to less than ¼ inch. Freezer temperatures should be kept at 0oF. The refrigerant in a freezer will not work properly if the freezer is installed in a garage or other space that frequently goes below 45 degrees Fahrenheit.
========================================================
Living Together, Part 1 of 4
By Morris Kafka
Someone asserted that the planet is so overcrowded that even if all the resources were divided evenly a large percentage of the world population would still be starving. While population issues and world food security are beyond the scope of my expertise I do believe that if we use the resources we have wisely we can vastly reduce the suffering and deprivation of others.
Given the finite number of resources on the planet and the pressing need for decent housing it would stand to reason that we should make efficient use of what we have. Sadly in the last few decades many of those with money, or those who borrowed money chose to buy homes more as status symbol than as a practical dwelling, in much the same way some people chose autos that resemble armored cars to use for grocery shopping. Couples with perhaps one or two children live in homes with vast volumes of space to heat and maintain. Meanwhile large families may be crowded into substandard, small quarters. A lack of mass transit and prohibitive costs of owning a vehicle force people to stay near their workplace regardless of conditions. On the other hand, ever travel through a fully developed urban area, one with mass transit, easy access to health care, jobs and retail and observe solid, sometimes quite attractive housing units, even large apartment houses sitting vacant?
An unfortunate lack of planning has allowed the continuing sprawl. Everyone pays the cost of building new schools, new sewer lines, power supplies and roads, etc. Meanwhile the core of the city, where life is much more efficient is often left to rot. There has been endless talk of open spaces and curbing growth, but still it seems so many developers subscribe to a “build it and they will come” mentality. People are often attracted to something new without considering the benefits that they are leaving behind in the old place.
On a practical level if new construction wasn’t done on speculation and the taxpayers were well aware of the long term costs to everyone of extending the infrastructures there would be great reluctance to allow new construction while existing, good buildings and decent neighborhoods were sitting idle, creating costly and dangerous blight and liabilities. Once the blossom is off the rose of newness it isn’t always better. Many of the homes built in the last 30 years are falling apart now due to inferior construction techniques and short lived materials. This is exacerbated by the general cultural lack of interest in or knowledge about preventative maintenance. Some of these once desirable homes will become slums, burn or be demolished. Meanwhile older, sustainable buildings with thick walls and lovely interiors have been all but ignored in the cities for years are still standing proud. This is a valuable lesson. The smartest growth is no growth until it is necessary. The best recycling is reusing what we already have when it is good quality and can reasonably be used again rather than replacing it with trendy clap trap. The greenest buildings, greenest neighborhoods and greenest cities are the ones that already exist because the energy and materials have already been used and put into place. That embodied energy needs to be fully factored into community planning rather than completely discounted as is still the norm.
As citizens we need to collectively concern ourselves with not allowing short term interests of developers, contractors or city officials who want “trophy” buildings and press for inappropriate projects. We will benefit long term by focusing on what is really good for the community and choosing to remove only the worst and make sure we replace it with the very best. When left to their own devices those holding the purse strings and keys think patchwork about each project that is presented. Even with a master plan they rarely decide from such a holistic view. The proof is in front of our eyes when we look at areas that were “redeveloped” 20 or so years ago and remember all their promises. When we tally up how many businesses and people were displaced and how much money it cost we realize that these projects lost us some resources but didn’t necessarily improve the quality of life and they themselves are now often targeted for removal. Who wins here? Who profits from this endless cycle of tearing down and building? If they replace homes and stores with parking decks now people may be able to park but where will people live and shop? We need to look closely at the motivation behind new development and ensure that adequate programming and funding goes into maintaining and improving existing neighborhoods without displacing the people and facilities that make them special.
Next time I’ll look at alternative ways to design housing and ways to better live together.
Got any old house questions or column suggestions? E-mail me at m.kafka@verizon.net. Visit my blog at oldhouseresource.wordpress.com
=========================================================
Living Together, Part 2 of 4
By Morris Kafka
In earlier times it was very difficult for a person to live alone and have adequate shelter and necessities for decent living, unless perhaps the person was very wealthy or living in the most ideal climate with an abundant source of food nearby. Such idyllic scenarios are still the exception yet since the industrial revolution there has been an increasing move of population to the cities coupled with a decreasing connection to any ancestral land or home. Constant transience and the rise of the nuclear family unit in many cultures lead to a fracturing of more traditional extended families and clans. With this has come the demand for vast quantities of housing units for individuals or very small families. Exacerbating this trend, in the USA and elsewhere there has been a vast and illogical increase in the size of the average housing unit for many in the middle class and above even as the average family size has diminished and the amount of time spent at home has decreased over the last few decades. Those of us concerned with health and well being understand that the general arc of community development is closely linked with the quality of life of the citizens. We need to take the air, water and resource use of each project in the community into consideration along with asking how well it will address present and future needs.
America is rapidly turning into a vast cookie cutter wasteland with national chain lined streets and bland, quickly built and bland housing with little regard for energy efficiency or the long term needs of the community. This is the town equivalent of fast food, its’ primary concern is profit for the corporation. It gives little nourishment and is only a stand in for the real thing. We don’t have to buy into it. A good part of the answer lies in learning how to live together again. Endless, redundant duplication of housing units and chain stores beyond actual demand only spread the population thin from one place to the next resulting in vacancies, abandonment, blight and vast wastes of resources.
How do we rectify these situations? At one extreme, smart growth planning needs to be taken much more seriously by entire communities and at the other extreme individuals need to stop and think before creating excessive demand. The current economic climate has caused a drastic slowdown in construction and one opportunity at this time is to ask questions of sustainability. Is constant new construction and expansion really good for the economy and the planet? Bottom line is while there are existing vacant and useful buildings that can be reasonably made functional in our communities we should focus on filling these before building new structures. We must ask ourselves if we really need something before we mortgage our future and further debilitate our natural landscape and resources with new construction. Our economy cannot forever be based on growth and production and we need to stop thinking that new is always an improvement. We now know that the once new shopping centers decimated many main streets and gutted many mom and pop businesses and that the big box stores have continued the same pattern without really providing any new benefits or better jobs in many cases. When we patronize our locally owned businesses and stay in existing housing we save resources and we keep the tax base and local economy stable. There is, incidentally, good money to be made by contractors in repairing and upgrading existing buildings and there will continue to be demand for construction materials to refurbish existing buildings. The construction industry must shift towards focusing on energy and resource conservation and on maintaining existing structures competently to not only weather economic downturns but to be of the best use to existing communities. When we find ways to live in more modestly sized quarters per person, as most previous generations did, we use less utilities and live more efficiently. Housing is not a status symbol, it is a necessity. When we create and maintain houses that are larger than necessary we waste resources that are needed by others. When we live together in traditional communities we can create a healthy functioning town where life is more social, balanced and efficient unlike the vapid, isolating experience of living in some far flung suburbs. One intelligent way to make life in urban areas work well is to reuse the solid large old homes that once held large families and their staff. Sometimes these can be readily reconfigured as several units or as used as cooperative housing. I’ll look at some adaptive reuse housing modalities and some of their strong points and shortcomings next.
Got any old house questions or column suggestions? E-mail me at m.kafka@verizon.net. Visit my blog at oldhouseresource.wordpress.com
=========================================================
Living Together, Part 3 of 4
By Morris Kafka
As times change peoples needs for shelter remain, but the ways in which we live in homes and the groupings change. The legendary nuclear family is not the only normal arrangement. Of course historically some people lived in their ancestral homes, all the generations together. Especially in farming communities this was the norm until recently. Geriatric and child care took place under the same roof that all the labor and business of the household was done in. Even in city homes much more food preparation and entertaining was done at home than today. Families were often larger, with many children. If prosperous enough there were servants that might live in the home as well. Thus older homes may have a variety of smaller rooms and many bedrooms, as well as domestic quarters.
After the Great Depression household servants grew less common. The common notion through the 1960s at least was to build modestly sized, easy to maintain homes. To this day, especially when they are outside of wealthy neighborhoods the general trend has been to demolish large older homes that are considered too fussy to keep up without maids and maintenance staff. But there has always been a counter trend; in working class neighborhoods and urban areas these homes have been divided into multiple apartments — sometimes nicely and sometimes poorly. Many people do not realize that the famed “Brownstones” of NYC were built as somewhat palatial single family dwellings, though most of them now contain an apartment on each floor. Because of superior construction and logical layout these homes successfully made the transition from large, prosperous Victorian families to efficient and often stylish apartments for individuals or small families without losing their character and often at modest conversion cost. They clearly provide a useful and very desirable form of housing when well kept.
In other areas there were similar, if sometimes less successful attempts at reusing grand homes. Most of us are familiar with some once grand old neighborhoods where sprawling, often wooden homes, fell into decay as their owners aged and people left for other regions. Some of these areas held on long enough for another generation to come and decide they were worth refurbishing and in the best scenarios one can find these large old homes used as residences again, sometimes carefully divided into multiple units and sometimes used as cooperative houses or bed and breakfast inns. Only very rarely will one find a large family inhabiting such a house these days. In more down at the heels neighborhoods, or where owners are simply interested in profits some of these homes are cut up with no regard for structural integrity, safety or comfort of the tenants. Poorly executed conversions combined with poor management can cause or accelerate blight at an ominous rate. Sadly many communities lack the resources to effectively regulate this alarming state of affairs and often take the tack of demolition rather than pressing for repairs and attempting to draw new owners. Demolition of elements within contiguous neighborhoods has been shown to be detrimental not only to the tax base but to long term functioning of the area. There also seems to be little understanding of the basic economic concept that if you keep a place tidy and attractive you bolster the esteem and quality of the residents, reduce problems, and increase income and resale value in addition to stabilizing the neighborhood.
Meanwhile, back in the suburbs… oddly enough as the size of the average family shrinks, the costs of construction and utilities increase and environmental concerns grow there has been a trend over the last couple of decades to build exceptionally large houses in far flung, inconvenient areas for middle class families. Sadly, most of these newer homes are not built very durably and the types of synthetic materials used to construct them seem to degrade within a generation. This problem is dire enough so that homes built in the 1980s with “low maintenance” vinyl siding and vinyl windows and composite wood cabinetry and flooring now need to have many of those elements replaced at great cost. Future families may also realize that – just like an oversized SUV — the newer, oversized homes are hard to maintain, waste resources and aren’t really practical in most cases and they will fall out of favor. It is unlikely that many of these houses would survive the transition to multi-families due to their odd layouts, flimsy construction and lack of demand for such rental housing of that type in outlying regions. Note that in older homes hundred year old siding and windows lucky enough to get a decent paint job every few years and a bit of maintenance here and there continue to function presentably with no need for wholesale replacement. They were designed to last and be repairable without needing proprietary materials or skills. Old homes also often have many rooms with doors between them and hallway access, providing great flexibility and allowing rooms to be closed off to save heat or allowing them to them to be used as shared or multi-family homes without great changes being made. This is contrary to the current obsession with “open plans” which may be fine for casual entertaining but otherwise fall flat in terms of providing privacy or flexibility and which require extraordinary amounts of utilities to heat and light.
Ultimately there are ways to use the existing housing stock in an environmentally and economically effective way to provide safe and comfortable housing for many more people and to help produce income that can prevent foreclosure or augment people’s income while actually creating a positive social environment. Soon I’ll write further about alternative, co-operative and shared uses of homes and some of the pitfalls and highlights of these modalities.
Got any old house questions or column suggestions? E-mail me at m.kafka@verizon.net. Visit my blog at oldhouseresource.wordpress.com
=========================================================
Living Together, Part 4 of 4
By Morris Kafka
Living in a college town it is easy to stereotype shared housing as ill kempt, costly and overcrowded housing that students cram into without adequate oversight or maintenance. In times and places where there is a shortage of money or housing, or both, it is relatively common to find unrelated people doubling and tripling up, or more in one unit.
Obviously some of these arrangements grow out of necessity; when people earning limited income need to live in costly areas for example. But in other cases shared arrangements are nicer, by design. The elderly person or couple who rents out space to a younger person partially in exchange for help around the house or keeping an eye on the place. The young homeowners with extra space who want to create a cooperative environment. The group of artists or musicians who find mutual stimulation in sharing their talents — these are a few possibilities.
Grand homes were built with so much space; perhaps originally there were maid’s quarters or children’s rooms that are no longer used. These homes were sometimes designed for a family and staff of 10 or more. Using such spaces as shared residences is a logical and cost effective way to keep them functioning. It provides a great option for single people who don’t want to live in a small & soulless apartment. Old census records show that many homes had unrelated individuals in them over a century ago. A house with six bedrooms can accommodate 6 people whether nuclear family or a group of friends. The quality of life in such a house comes down to the way the people decide to manage the household and how well they cooperate.
Shared homes that function well prevent houses that might otherwise be white elephants from being torn down — thus keeping the neighborhood intact and the tax rolls paid. Since shared homes rarely have any children in the school systems they can cost the town less than having a nuclear family in the same home. Strangely enough many communities have a zoning or code bias against shared housing. Even when the density of residents is not greater and the actual use the same as a biological family a whole host of additional regulations may make such sharing impractical, from the imposing of boarding house licensing on them to regulations that forbid groups of more than three unrelated individuals from living together. Sadly, such rules don’t always have exemptions for “familial type dwellings” where there is a shared living room and kitchen and people do not live in locked cubicles as if in a hotel or rooming house. In communities with many unwanted larger homes zoning that prevents cooperative housing brings the homes one step closer to abandonment, demolition or brutal remodeling into makeshift “legal” apartments. We’ve all seen the bad results, awkwardly divided units that are less safe and less healthy than shared housing and claustrophobic as well. Sometimes someone has the good sense to hire an architect who inserts new apartments of high quality that preserve the gracious details of the old home they are in — often at no higher cost than ill planned renovations. But as we know the best use of resources is to simply use what you have as it is rather than converting it into something else.
Shared housing has many possible pitfalls. The physical arrangement and choice of occupants has to be made with care, as in any joint venture, so that everyone is clear on the responsibilities and privileges of the house and of understanding the expectations of the neighbors and the community. Naturally within the setting of a food Co-operative one will find people who live in co-operative housing. People have high ideals but not everyone is “on the same page” when it comes to cooperating. Inevitably there will be challenges but by observing existing shared housing and asking for advice from those who are successful, getting informed about the rules & regulations of such housing and working things out, in writing, clearly and monitoring honestly and regularly to ensure that all is well things can work out comfortably. Humans are not designed to live in isolation, in our own tiny worlds. We have almost always lived together in clans or villages. We have generations of teachings and skills to make cooperation work — if we are committed to it. Some of the best cooperative houses become legendary, hosting salons, publishing poetry, becoming meeting places for great food and for volunteer or spiritual projects. The synergy between people who wish to live together can be miraculous — just as it can be in the co-op. When it works it really works.
Old house & household questions? Visit my blog at: oldhouseresource.wordpress.com
Down the Drain
By Morris Kafka
This isn’t about the economy. It is about using good sense in daily activities. Many folks don’t give a thought to where things go after we send them down our drains. Stuff doesn’t just disappear; it is always somewhere and our waste will come back to haunt us or the greater environment if we don’t tend to it properly.
If something inappropriate goes down the drain or contaminants such as grease, soap or hair build up in the drain it will slow down or clog within or near the house. Any toxic or non-biodegradable item that goes down your drain either ends up choking your septic system or burdening the city sewer system. The more junk gets sent into the system the more difficult and expensive it is to process the sewage; hence taxes and sewer bills increase and the quality of the environment goes down. The best practice is to avoid putting items that are too large or not likely to decompose swiftly into the drain.
If you live in a home with a septic the chemicals in soaps, shampoos and cleansers will remain in the ground right below you. This is an immediate concern if you use well water or grow food or anyone downhill of you does. Eventually most chemicals leach into the water table and end up back in the water. With city sewer this pattern is the same, just on a larger scale. Using the safest, gentlest, non-toxic soaps and cleaners available and using them modestly is the best choice.
Some products are marketed as “flushable” or “septic safe” but it is still unwise to put them there. Personal hygiene products can end up on our beaches and can be fatal to marine life. Dispose of them in a sealed container with the trash. People who put unneeded medications down the toilet may not be aware that this is very dangerous. The chemicals in these can dissolve in water and poison the environment. Put unwanted medications in the trash or give them to a clinic that accepts them. The toilet is not a good ashtray (nor is the ground or a storm sewer). Plastic filters do not decompose and along with nicotine can wash into waterways and poison marine life. At water treatment plants you can see thousands of cigarette butts being filtered out of the waste stream constantly. Please put out cigarettes with water and throw them in the trash (the same is true for pet waste; don’t burden the sewers with it).
No one wants a backed up drain and prevention is the best cure. Make sure every drain has a strainer that fits and use it religiously. If it doesn’t have one take careful measurements and buy the right strainer at a plumbing supply or home improvement store. Periodically clean debris off the strainer. In the kitchen wipe food residue such as rice, pasta, etc. from dishes out into the trash before washing and keep trimmings out of the drain. Never pour oil, grease or household chemicals down drains. In bathrooms don’t let hair, toothpaste caps or other small items fall into the drains. Choose the simplest, most basic toilet paper that you find agreeable to avoid clogging problems. Never allow people to flush facial tissue, paper towels or table napkins in the toilet. While toilet paper is designed to start degrading on contact with water other paper products are designed specifically to hold up when wet and can quickly clog the drain. As soon as you notice a drain is running slow is the time to address it.
Sometimes you can reach in and pull out hair, small objects or gunk with gloved fingers or an old toothbrush. A sink or tub drain can be closed and the hot water run to fill the basin and when the drain is opened the pressure of the water will help flush away scum and residue. If this doesn’t work a kettle of boiling water may help. Never put hot water in a toilet as it may crack. You can pour a modest amount of baking soda in any drain, followed by a cup of white vinegar and the resulting foaming mixture will sometimes clean out the pipes. There are also safe enzymes available for slow drains.
Even with preventative measures a drain may eventually clog. Plungers can be very helpful, especially in the toilet, but they need to be the correct size and in good, elastic condition. One has to be careful that the drain pipes are not corroded nor have weak joints as the pressure from the plunger can do damage. Do not stick a coat hanger down the drain! You might poke a hole in the pipe and create a costly mess. If you are handy you can manage a snake of the proper size to try to clean the drain out. Most commercial drain chemicals are hazardous to you and the environment, so if you choose to use them follow the directions with extreme care. If you still need to call a plumber let them know when such cleaners have been used. Proper attention to what goes down the drains will minimize this possibility, saving you from inconvenience and expense and helping the environment.
Got any old house questions or column suggestions? E-mail me at m.kafka@verizon.net. Visit my blog at oldhouseresource.wordpress.com
========================================================
Got Gas?
By Morris Kafka
For 21 years I’ve driven only one vehicle. While I haven’t sent a
handful of autos to the scrap yard I am painfully aware that work
trucks as old as mine have poor fuel economy and emissions.
So for quite some time I’ve been doing research. Wanting to make the
lowest environmental impact but needing a full size work truck I’ve
found that new trucks are a bit better on gas but are very costly.
There also no hybrids or alternative fuel vehicles available in the
class of truck I need. I have considered a diesel, using cooking oil
as fuel. Unfortunately the necessary fuel is hard to find ready for
use at the pump and is more costly than regular diesel, itself now
notably more costly than gasoline.
Diesel trucks cost a great deal more to buy and repair, and are
heavier and have lower economy than a gasoline vehicles. Still, I test
drove a diesel truck. I found it extremely noisy. That makes it
inappropriate for use in residential areas; even as attractive as
reduced emissions are the trade off is noise pollution.
I also found truck manufacturers may void the warranty if you adapt
the vehicle to run on an alternate fuel. I just cannot come up with a
solution to needing a basic work truck and avoiding gasoline use
without creating all sorts of collateral problems. This of course is
frustrating. I’d love to be able to write a column stating “I did it;
I’m using recycled cooking oil to run my work truck”. While that looks
unlikely now I have learned a good deal about Straight Vegetable Oil
(SVO) fuel use and recycling cooking oil. This is of interest to those
concerned with the environment and of additional value to those with
older diesel engines that are willing to experiment.
Note that commercially available “biodiesel” is a blend of
conventional petroleum based diesel with some vegetable oil products,
it is not SVO. I was told that Volkswagen is one company that does
encourage the use of alternative fuels; indeed one friend runs her car
this way. She even mentioned that if she is low on fuel and is not
near a dealer that she fuels up with a readily available bottle of
canola oil. It turns out vegetable oil becomes very viscous at low
temperatures and can gum up in the system. It either needs to be mixed
with some type of thinner or additive or there has to be some type of
pre-heating system to thin it out so that it can function in the
diesel engine.
Because the difficulties of ensuring that cooking oil will work are
largely issues of cold weather regions people in warmer climates such
as the southwest can more readily benefit from this fuel without
worrying about thinning or heating it. There are converter kits
commercially available which can cost a considerable amount and there
are chemical products which are relatively inexpensive that people mix
with the oil.
Used cooking oil has to be filtered carefully and this is obviously a
tedious task but some people do it at home. New vegetable oil can be
treated in such a way that a vegetable glycerin soap is the by
product, leading to the possibility of a side business that offsets
the cost for an entrepreneur.
I have heard that there are some fuel co-ops out there where people
gather up used oil free from restaurants and prepare it for use by the
members. Given enough labor invested into this the cost can be less
than one dollar per gallon, the emissions are much cleaner and smell
like fried food. Fast food restaurants may experience a surge in
business if SVO becomes popular!
The environmental, political and economic ramifications of using oil
made from locally grown crops, or using recycled cooking oil as a fuel
are significant and largely positive when compared to the true costs
and dangers of using petroleum products. This is distinct from
ethanol, which is a grain alcohol used instead of gasoline and is
worthy of a separate discussion.
Small farmers could, with proper management, plant crops that produce
fuel oil with a minimum of wasteful processing and without impinging
on the food supply. Until better technologies are here this is a
viable alternative working for a number of people already. Co-ops are
of course a place where sharing information and cutting edge
innovation can come together. This issue is of import in such an auto
dependent culture so please write or e-mail in if you know more about
this matter or have personal experience.
m.kafka@verizon.net
========================================================
The Fluorescent Bulb Controversy
By Morris Kafka
Correction: In a previous column I wrote that stainless steel
cookware seemed to have a clean track record for safety. However, if
it is scrubbed or scratched roughly it could release toxic metals into
food.
Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs) are being hyped by everyone
from John Kerry to IKEA. I use to save energy, lower bills and
because I don’t need to change bulbs often. I don’t like the light
some produce but I can mix and match bulbs in fixtures with multiple
sockets.
A question came up as to the potential environmental dangers of these
bulbs, as they contain mercury. There have been a couple of horror
stories reported when the bulbs have broken or been used in
inappropriate fixtures. There are thousands of entries on the web
regarding fluorescent bulbs, which have been around for many years.
You must handle them carefully so as not to break them and avoid
placing them in track lighting, lighting with dimmer switches or
electronic timers or totally enclosed fixtures unless the bulb
specifically states that it can be used in such fixtures.
The following information is quoted or paraphrased from the online
encyclopedia Wikipedia; much of it comes from Canada but our issues in
the USA are similar:
‘CFLs use less power to supply the same amount of light as an
incandescent lamp of the same lumen rating so they decrease overall
energy consumption. Generation of electricity is a major source of
pollution in various forms. According to Environment Canada:
“The electricity sector is unique among industrial sectors in its very
large contribution to emissions associated with nearly all air issues.
Electricity generation produces a large share of Canadian nitrogen
oxides and sulphur dioxide emissions, which contribute to smog and
acid rain and the formation of fine particulate matter. It is the
largest uncontrolled industrial source of mercury emissions in Canada.
Fossil fuel-fired electric power plants also emit carbon dioxide,
which contributes to climate change. In addition, the sector has
significant impacts on water and habitat and species. In particular,
hydro dams and transmission lines have significant effects on water
and biodiversity.”
Mercury use of compact fluorescent bulb vs. incandescent bulb when
powered by electricity generated from coal: CFLs contain small amounts
of mercury and it is a concern for landfills and waste incinerators
where the mercury from lamps may be released and contribute to air and
water pollution. In the USA, lighting manufacturer members of the
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) have made a
voluntary commitment to cap the amount of mercury used in CFLs:
Under the voluntary commitment, effective April 15, 2007, NEMA members
will cap the total mercury content in CFLs of less than 25 watts at 5
milligrams (mg) per unit. The total mercury content of CFLs that use
25 to 40 watts of electricity will be capped at 6 mg per unit. Some
manufacturers such as Philips and GE make very low mercury content
CFLs. Safe disposal requires storing the bulbs unbroken until they can
be processed. Consumers should seek advice from local authorities.
Usually, one can either:
* Return used CFLs to where they were purchased, so the store
can recycle them correctly; or
* Take used CFLs to a local recycling facility.
The first step of processing involves crushing the bulbs in a machine
that uses negative pressure ventilation and a mercury-absorbing filter
or cold trap to contain and treat the contaminated gases. Many
municipalities are purchasing such machines. The crushed glass and
metal is stored in drums, ready for shipping to recycling factories.
Coal power plants are the “the largest uncontrolled industrial source
of mercury emissions in Canada”. According to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), (when coal power is used) the mercury
released from powering an incandescent bulb for five years exceeds the
total of (a) the mercury released by powering a comparably luminous
CFL for the same period and (b) the mercury contained in the lamp. It
should be noted, however that the “EPA is implementing policies to
reduce airborne mercury emissions. Under regulations issued in 2005,
coal-fired power plants will need to reduce their emissions by 70
percent by 2018.” This change will lengthen the term before CFLs are
better than incandescents. If CFLs are recycled and the mercury
reclaimed, the equation tilts towards CFLs, and if non-coal sources of
electricity are used, the equation tilts toward incandescents.’
Within a few years LED or solar based lighting may have advanced
rendering CFLs obsolete. For now I recommend we all remember to turn
off lighting and equipment when not in use and choose bulbs of the
minimum appropriate wattage. If you buy CFLs check for low mercury
content and see that the retailer takes the bulbs back for proper
disposal before finalizing your purchase.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.