In this post I will look at the only energy input: fuel.

Work, Energy, and Power

Before looking at fuel, it’s worth defining a few terms that I will be using throughout this series of posts. “Work”, “energy”, and “power” are terms used frequently and sometimes interchangeably by the general populace, but in an engineering context, they have specific meanings that must be understood. For a greater understanding than I provide here, follow the links to Wikipedia articles.

Work is a force applied over some distance. The amount of work is equal to the force multiplied by the distance. If force is measured in Newtons (N) and distance is measured in metres, then multiplying force by distance will give work in Joules (J). The Joule is a measure of energy. Work is a specific kind of energy. It can be thought of as energy used to move something.

Energy is a measure of the capacity to do work. It is also measured in Joules. Energy can take many forms (e.g., chemical, light, heat, work). Energy can be converted from one form to another through various means. In an engine, for example, the chemical energy of a fuel is converted to heat through the process of combustion and the heat is used to expand a gas against a piston, converting some of the heat to work.

Power is a “rate” of energy flow. Power is measured in Watts (W). It can be expressed as energy per unit time. 1 Watt is equivalent to 1 Joule per second. Since work is a form of energy equal to force times distance, and power is equal to energy divided by time, it follows that power is equal to force times distance divided by time. In other words, power is equal to force times velocity.

Just as power can be expressed as energy per unit time (e.g., 1W = 1J/s), energy may be expressed as power multiplied by time (e.g., 1Ws = 1J, 1Wh = 3600J or 3.6kJ, 1kWh = 3.6MJ) . You may be more familiar with energy expressed in kWh as this is a common unit of measurement used on utility bills.

I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to understand these terms and the formulas relating them. Without such an understanding, hypermiling is all just trial and error.

Energy Density of Fuels

A certain volume of fuel contains a certain amount of chemical energy that can be released by combustion. Energy density is a measure of the chemical energy per unit volume or per unit mass of fuel. Energy is specified in kWh (recall 1kWh = 3.6MJ), volume is specified in litres, and mass is specified in kg. Thus energy density of fuels is commonly specified in kWh/litre or kWh/kg.

The table below shows energy densities for some fuels you may be familiar with:

I drive a gasoline vehicle, so for every litre of fuel consumed, 9kWh of energy is input to the vehicle and the law of conservation of energy requires that all energy losses in the vehicle energy flow chart above must total 9kWh. Hopefully it’s clear that the way those 9kWh of energy are divided between the various energy losses will have a significant effect on vehicle mileage. Of specific interest is the fraction of energy “spent” on overcoming rolling resistance and drag since those are the only “necessary losses” to move the vehicle.

Aside: Whenever I encounter energy specifications like this, I like to do a quick cost comparison. For example, I know from my utility bills that I pay about $0.07 per kWh for electricity. I pay about $1.00 per litre for gasoline. Since gasoline contains 9kWh per litre, I effectively pay $1.00/9 = $0.11 per kWh for gasoline. This is one among many of the reasons why I don’t burn gasoline to heat my home and why I’m considering building an electric vehicle.

Although it’s conceivable that the energy density of a fuel may be manipulated by additives, this is generally not attempted by hypermilers and would be a poor place to start for the beginner. Also note that energy density is not related to octane level.

Unfortunately it appears that our first stop on the energy flow diagram hasn’t yielded any techniques or modifications a driver can use to improve their mileage. However, the important thing to take away from this post is that the energy density of a fuel is fixed and that for gasoline specifically, it is 9kWh/litre or 12.8kWh/kg. I’ll be coming back to those numbers again in later posts to convert calculated energy losses back to litres of fuel consumed, which is what hypermilers are really interested in.

Stay tuned for Chapter 3 – Engine Losses which I promise will be more exciting since there ARE a lot of driving techniques and vehicle modifications you can use to improve engine efficiency.

Hyper-what?

Hypermilers are drivers who attempt (often obsessively) to extract every possible mile (or kilometre… up here in Canada) from a tank of gas, whether through driving techniques or vehicle modifications or both. I first started experimenting with hypermiling in 2007, having gleaned some information from websites and forums such as http://www.gassavers.org, http://cleanmpg.com, and http://www.ecomodder.com. I have a strong background in engineering and science (a B.A.Sc and M.Eng. from the University of British Columbia and I’ve been working in the field of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering for 12 years). Though the information on the above sites was a useful starting point, I found that much of it is was obvious and much of the rest of it was misguided. Some techniques are presented that produce good results, and there are certainly many members achieving excellent mileage, but the explanations given for the phenomena at work sometimes make my eyes roll. In a forum format it is difficult for an average reader to distinguish voices worth listening to from those that aren’t. My experience has been that there is a general lack of understanding of the science behind hypermiling and there is no single source where the science is explained in detail. That is something that I hope to correct through this series of posts.

Why do it?

First, let’s state the obvious. If you want to consume less fuel, the surest way to do it is to drive less. However, even walking and biking result in fuel consumption. I’ve heard it said that a meat-eating cyclist is responsible for more fossil fuel consumption per mile traveled than a vegetarian SUV driver. While I’m not certain of the validity of that statement, it does illustrate a point. A person’s effective fossil fuel consumption goes well beyond what they burn directly. In any case, the intent of this guide is not to discuss the merits of driving or not driving. I will leave it to the reader to determine that for themselves.

If you do drive I will assume you may be interested in reducing your fuel consumption. Perhaps you wish to save money. Perhaps you wish to save the environment. Perhaps you wish to reduce your dependence on foreign oil. Perhaps you are just looking for a worthy obsession. One of the best explanations for hypermiling I’ve seen comes from MetroMPG (an active member of several online forums – see his website at http://www.metrompg.com). He says:

No, it’s not just for the money.

I calculate fuel consumption on each tank of gas because it’s a challenge. It’s a high performance activity; a technical skill; a game, like GT4 and sail boat racing.

In my university days, I took a number of car racing courses. All of which boiled down to: “how to apply a few rules of physics to your driving technique in order to squeeze the maximum possible speed from a given radius, without skidding off into the weeds.” The feedback was hearing the tires sing just the right song through the curves, and out-pacing other drivers in identical cars.

Economy driving is just a different kind of performance driving: “how to apply a few rules of physics to your driving technique in order to squeeze the maximum possible distance from a given amount of fuel.” The feedback is the numbers at each fill-up, and (hopefully) beating the ratings. Plus the satisfaction of knowing it’s much easier on the machinery, the environment, and the wallet (if you don’t go overboard with efficiency mods).

It doesn’t have the instant gratification of screaming through the curves… but it’s not going to cost me my license either. Driving at the limit of grip is something safely done on the track, but driving efficiently is a game you can play anywhere, all the time.

Does it really work?

Given the number of fuel saving scams out there, I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re skeptical. I was skeptical when I started too. I had heard it said by many that the most significant gains could be had simply by changing one’s driving style. I thought I was an “economic” driver and I was skeptical that I could achieve significant improvements just by changing the way I drove. After a little research, calculation and experimentation I discovered just how wrong I was. In hindsight it seems obvious. The way we are taught to drive – the way auto manufacturers intend their vehicles to be driven – simply isn’t an efficient way of converting fuel to kilometres. In the first year after I started hypermiling, I improved my mileage from 40 MPG to 65 MPG without any vehicle modifications other than the addition of a vacuum gauge (the proper use of which I will describe in Chapter 3). In the remainder of this series I hope to describe how you too can squeeze the maximum possible distance from a given amount of fuel, under real world driving conditions, without annoying nearby drivers (well… not too much anyway) and without spending more on vehicle modifications than you’re likely to save on fuel.

It’s all about energy

Hypermiling is all about conserving energy. Thus it can best be understood through a systematic exploration of the energy flows in a vehicle. The first law of thermodynamics, often referred to as the law of conservation of energy, states that for a closed system whose internal energy remains constant, the total energy input must exactly equal the total energy output. Energy in = Energy out. Considering a vehicle as a closed system, energy is input in form of fuel. Energy flows through the system from engine to gearbox to drivetrain to wheels, etc. At each step along this flow, some energy is output from the system in the form of heat. Thus there are many paths through which energy is output from the system. The energy flow can be represented graphically as I have done in the diagram below.

The first law of thermodynamics requires that for a given distance traveled, the combined total of all energy outputs in the above diagram must exactly equal the energy input in the form of fuel.

Aside: The astute observer may note that the underlying assumption that the internal energy of the system is constant isn’t entirely true. The speed of the vehicle, the level of charge of the battery and the altitude all affect the internal energy of the system. However, these effects can be ignored as long as the vehicle is in the same state (same speed, altitude and level of charge of the battery) whenever the energy inputs and outputs are measured. Note that the amount of fuel in the tank does NOT affect the internal energy of the system since I am considering the gas tank as being OUTSIDE the system. Instead, I consider fuel as entering the system when it passes through the fuel injector. This allows more precise comparison of input to output energy and does not require that we consider the fuel in the tank as an internal energy of the system.

Note that to move a vehicle, the only losses which MUST be overcome are rolling resistance and air resistance (drag). If you were to push a vehicle by hand instead of driving it, you would be supplying the energy input. Rolling resistance and drag would be the only energy losses. Rolling resistance and drag are losses imposed by the environment from outside the system. All other losses are just an indirect result of the methods employed within the system in an attempt to overcome rolling resistance and drag.

A certain amount of fuel consumption can be attributed to each energy loss. It is a useful analogy to think of each energy loss path as a virtual hole in a your gas tank that fluctuates in size in response to your actions (vehicle speed, engine RPM, engine load, braking habits, etc). Every drop of fuel you put in your tank eventually exits the system through one of these “holes”. Hypermiling, at its heart, is the art and science of plugging the holes (at least partially) through driving techniques and vehicle modifications. The remainder of this series will be a systematic exploration of the energy inputs and outputs shown above. I will attempt to follow the outline below (I’ll change these to links as I post new information):

Chapter 1 – Introduction and outline
Chapter 2 – Fuel
Chapter 3 – Engine Losses
Chapter 4 – Drivetrain Losses
Chapter 5 – Braking Losses
Chapter 6 – Rolling Resistance
Chapter 7 – Air Resistance (Drag)
Chapter 8 – Alternator and Electrical Losses
Chapter 9 – Miscellaneous Additional Losses
Chapter 10 – Summary

Hopefully I will be able to post a chapter every couple weeks. In each chapter I’ll discuss:
1. The science that describes the phenomenon including the equations governing the energy flow.
2. How to measure the energy losses on your own vehicle to determine parameter values for the equations.
3. Driving techniques and vehicle modifications to reduce the energy losses.
4. The degree of reduction achievable for the particular energy loss, and the effect on overall fuel consumption.
5. Results from some of my own experiments.

If you have comments related to topics that I haven’t covered yet, please save them until the related topic is posted. Consider subscribing to my RSS feed and/or email notifications via the link on the main page if you want to be notified as each chapter is posted.

Stay tuned.

We (my wife and I that is) keep the temperature in our home relatively low in winter. As I’m writing this, it’s a balmy 16 degrees C in my living room. My lovely wife is wearing a toque and she’s about to put on another sweater because she’s feeling “a bit of a chill”, but she’s a trooper and wouldn’t have it any other way. That’s how she was raised. In Richmond, BC, where we live, winters are… well… wet. It’s pretty much a case of 100% relative humidity outside 24/7 and the water table is at ground level… well… truthfully sometimes it’s a few feet above ground level, but that’s why we have the pumps.

Combine 100% relative humidity outside with low temperatures inside and as you might expect, we occasionally have issues with condensation, especially on windows. “Experts” generally don’t recommend keeping interior temperatures below about 17 degrees C for exactly this reason. I don’t care much for expert opinions (experience has convinced me that I’m more expert than most of them), but I also don’t care much for condensation.

A solution with a bonus: free energy

The solution (without simply raising the temperature of our home),  is a dehumidifier. While I purchased it for its intended purpose (to reduce humidity levels) I now realize that it also makes a very effective heater. Ah… but doesn’t it cost money and energy to operate a dehumidifier? Well… actually… NO! At least not in the winter, when we’re heating our home with electricity anyway. In fact, a dehumidifier is MORE efficient than an ordinary electric heater, which is already 100% efficient. Yes, a dehumidifier is more than 100% efficient at heating your home. That is to say the amount of heat a dehumidifier will release into your home is greater than the amount of electrical energy it will consume. The reason is simple: a dehumidifier removes energy from water vapor in the air in order to condense it to a liquid. This energy is released into your home.

It’s all about enthalpy

There is a property of any substance known as the enthalpy of vaporization. “Enthalpy” really just means energy. The enthalpy of vaporization of a substance is a measure of how much energy it takes to convert a given mass of the substance from a liquid to a gas. It also indicates how much energy is released when a given mass of the substance is condensed from a gas to a liquid. The enthalpy of vaporization of water is 2257 kJ/kg.

What is the efficiency?

How efficient is a dehumidifier at heating your home? Let’s figure it out together. I mean that literally. As I write this, I haven’t actually figured it out yet myself. I’m flying by the seat of my pants here, people; I’m a scientist gone rogue. But luckily I’m also a scientist who recently acquired a portable dehumidifier. I plugged it into a Kill-A-Watt meter several hours ago to measure exactly how much electrical energy (indicated in kWh by the Kill-A-Watt meter) it consumed. It’s been running for about 8 hours and it has consumed 3.87 kWh of electricity. Thus, based on the first law of thermodynamcis I know it has put at least 3.87 kWh of heat into my home.

However I have also determined with a simple digital scale that it has condensed 3.23 kg of water in that same time. How much additional energy did it release into my home as a result of that? That’s where the enthalpy of vaporization comes in. 3.23 kg multiplied by the enthalpy of vaporization of water (2257 kJ/kg) gives 7290 kJ of energy. A kWh is equivalent to 3600 kJ so 7290 kJ is equivalent to 2.025 kWh.

Thus, the total amount of heat released into my home by the dehumidifier over the last 8 hours is equivalent to the 3.87 kWh of electricity consumed, plus the 2.025 kWh of energy released by the condensation of water. The “efficiency” is equal to the energy output divided by the energy input or in this case (3.87 + 2.025)/3.87 = 1.52 or 152% efficiency. An efficiency over 100% is more appropriately referred to as a “coefficient of performance” since technically, it is impossible to achieve greater than 100% efficiency (having more than 100% efficiency in energy conversion would defy the first law of thermodynamics). So if you ever measure more than 100% efficiency, as I just did, what it really means is that you have moved energy from one place to another rather than simply converted energy from one form to another. Such is the case with a dehumidifier which removes energy from water vapor and releases it into the home in the form of heat, condensing the water to liquid in the process. But whatever the terminology you want to use, the fact remains that I can release 1.52 kWh of heat into my home for every  1 kWh of electricity my dehumidifier consumes.

What’s the payback time?

I paid about $250 CAD for my dehumidifier. It consumes about 480W of electricity (3.87 kWh in 8 h) and outputs about 730W of heat (480W*1.52) into my home. I can buy a decent electric heater that will output 730W for about $50. So the difference in price is about $200. Let’s calculate the difference in the cost to operate. A 730W electric heater consumes exactly 730W of electricity. The dehumidifier only consumes 480W of electricity to produce the same 730W of heat. The difference (730-480) is 250W. Effectively I get a free kWh (1000 Wh)of heat for every 4 hours of operation. I currently pay about $0.07 per kWh for electricty, so I save about $0.42 per day when operating the dehumidifier in place of a heater. My heating season runs from October through March, or around 180 days of the year. Therefore, I can save about 180*$0.42 = $75 per year by operating the dehumidifier in place of a heater. That will take a little over 2.5 years to pay back the difference in price of $200.

Will this work for anyone?

In a word, “No”. The human body is most comfortable at a relative humidity between 20% and 60%. I can run my dehumidifier continuously in winter and not expect to ever drop below 20% relative humidity inside my home. The same may not be true for homeowners in other locations maintaining their homes at higher temperatures than I do. Heating with a dehumidifier works for me because of the high relative humidity in Richmond, even in the winter, and because of the low temperature at which I keep the interior of my home. It could work well for anyone who lives in a similar environment and keeps their home at a low temperature. But if you live where temperatures are usually below 0 degrees C outside in winter then you likely have a much lower relatively humidity. In that case, a dehumidifier will not be able to condense nearly as much water for a given amount of input energy and its operation may bring the relative humidity below a comfortable level.

Clothes dryer vs a rack and a dehumidifier

If you’re considering hanging your wet clothing to dry inside your home, vs using your drier, then you should know that a dehumidifier will be far more efficient than a clothes dryer. In the case of a clothes dryer, electrical energy is used to vaporize the water in your clothing and the water vapor (and all the energy you’ve put into it) is expelled from your home through your drier vent. There is a net loss of energy from your home. If instead you use a dehumidifier, the heat already in your home is used to vaporize (evaporate) the water in your clothing. This energy is recaptured by the dehumidifier when the water vapor is condensed to liquid. Unlike the drier, the dehumidifier doesn’t expel any energy from your home.

Heat pump vs dehumidifier

A dehumidifier is effectively a heat pump. Rather than extracting heat from the ground or the outside air, a dehumidifier extracts heat from water vapor contained in a home’s inside air. In my home, for reasons given above, I can run my dehumidifier continuously without reducing the relative humidity in my home below a comfortable level and I’ve found the coefficient of performance (COP) is about 1.52. A typical air source heat pump has a COP of around 4 assuming an outside temperature of around 0 degrees C (a typical Richmond winter). A typical ground source heat pump has a COP of around 7 assuming a ground temperature of around 10 degrees C (a typical Richmond ground temperature). So clearly, a heat pump (either air or ground source) is much more efficient. If I had a heat pump, I would be consuming more energy than otherwise by operating my dehumidifier. That said, I feel secure in the knowledge that I can run my single dehumidifier continously and consume less energy to heat my home than if I were running an electric heater. I’ll save the installation of a heat pump for another day… perhaps.

Can you heat your whole home this way?

No. If I were to install more portable dehumidifiers to provide all the heat my home requires (to maintain a balmy 16 degrees C all winter long) I would almost certainly bring the relative humidity below comfortable levels, and the COP would drop below the measured value of 1.52 simply because there isn’t enough water vapor in the air to be condensed. So the idea of using a dehumidifier to heat one’s home is clearly not scalable. At best a dehumidifier may provide suplemental heat. I think  I might get away with using two portable dehumidifiers continuously which would each save me about $75 per year based on the calculations above. That’s about $150 per year in total. Currently, that’s about 10% of my home’s annual heating bill.

I’ve known for some time that BC Hydro is a net exporter of power. When we do import power it’s because the US will sell it to us cheaply during their off-peak hours in exchange for being able to buy it back during peak hours. Their coal fired power plants can’t change their output as quickly as the change in daily demand, so they use BC’s hydro power to even out the peaks and valleys.

I am infuriated by the Campbell government’s attempt (apparently successful) to manufacture consent for privatizing power production in BC by convincing BC residents that WE need the extra power for OUR use. WE DON’T!!! End of story.

In his article, Raif points out that even if we did need the extra power, private hydro projects will produce most of their power during spring run off, exactly when we don’t need it. Therefore, the only possible value in private hydro is the export market, especially given Obama’s mandate to find clean energy sources for the US. As Raif put it:

Our rivers, up to about 700 applications now, will be butchered to warm California swimming pools. Moreover, once we embark down this slippery slope we’re in this forever. We will be, like Bre’r Rabbit, stuck to the tar baby.

For an idea of what those 700 applications look like, here’s a map (courtesy of Private Power Watch):

Don’t get me wrong. I think that hydro power IS a clean, renewable resource and it SHOULD be developed further in BC, even for export purposes. Climate change is everyone’s problem and I will concede the possibility that “butchering our rivers” could be the lesser of many evils that could be done to help meet the worlds growing demand for power.

But… and this is a REALLY BIG BUT… why in the world would we not want to retain ownership and control over the resources we’re exporting. How could we be so short-sighted that we’re willing to relinquish ownership of our natural resources premanantly and irrovocably to private corporations. Once these resources are removed from the commons, there’s no going back. We’re giving up control over resources that might come in pretty darn handy as the world runs out of fossil fuels over the next couple centuries. The privatization of BC’s power generation is nothing but a short term cash grab that we will almost certainly regret when we have to compete with the US to purchase the power being generated on our own soil. And hydro power is not the only issue. Wind and other renewable power sources are also at risk.

It’s about situations like this that I often hear people remark “One day our grandchildren are going to look back and wonder what the hell we were thinking”. I WISH that were the case but the sad fact is that our grandchildren likely won’t even know what they’re missing. It is exactly this lack of cross-generational accountability that frees each generation to sacrifice the future of the next.

If you are a BC resident concerned about the privatization of BC’s power, I strongly urge you to write your MLA. For more information and other ways to get involved, check out the Save our Rivers Society and www.hydrofactsbc.ca and Private Power Watch.

www.voteforenvironment.ca

All parties except the Conservatives have solid plans for dealing with climate change. The majority of Canadians are anti-Conservative but a Conservative win is the likely outcome based on current polls due to vote splitting between the opposing parties. The website above is an organizational tool for voting strategically against a Conservative win. Recommended parties and candidates are given for key ridings that will result in more seats for ALL non-conservative parties. On election day, consider uniting behind whatever candidate in your riding has the greatest chance of defeating the Conservative candidate.

Please pass this information on to whomever you think may be interested.

No funds will be allocated toward climate programs, let alone carbon offset strategies, which is a huge oversight. See my post BC’s Carbon Tax – So close yet so far from a few months ago for more details on that. The tax itself is not high enough to significantly reduce people’s consumption of fossil fuels, adding only 6% to the current price over the next 5 years. Seasonal variation and increasing world crude oil prices have resulted in an increase in price of about 16% over the past 3 months alone. That’s almost 3 times the increase that will be imposed by the BC carbon tax over the next 5 years.

I’m happy to see fuel prices rising because that kind of increase IS likely to make people rethink the amount of fossil fuel they consume, and indeed, “alternative” modes of transportation like walking, biking, and public transit are on the rise. I will not be surprised if the government takes credit for this in the following years, even though the trend has been well established before their tax has even taken effect. But the fact remains that the fuel that is consumed will not be any more “climate friendly” or “carbon neutral” once the tax is imposed. That is, unless people choose to make it so by spending their rebate wisely.

This year a $100 Climate Action Dividend cheque will be mailed to every British Columbian. A website called Green Your Campbell Cash has been developed by The Tyee, the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, Voters Taking Action on Climate Change, the David Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute with the intent of diverting at least some of the $440 odd million dollars of rebates to strategies that will actually have a climate impact. If you’re wondering what to do with you’re $100 rebate, or if you have a climate project and are looking for funding, check out the website.

Originally posted at www.IWillTry.org.

From its extraction through sale, use and disposal, all the stuff in our lives affects communities at home and abroad, yet most of this is hidden from view. The Story of Stuff is a 20-minute, fast-paced, fact-filled look at the underside of our production and consumption patterns. The Story of Stuff exposes the connections between a huge number of environmental and social issues, and calls us together to create a more sustainable and just world. It’ll teach you something, it’ll make you laugh, and it just may change the way you look at all the stuff in your life forever.

While 20 minutes is hardly enough time to touch on all the issues, this film does a great job and sends an overall positive message. Click the image below to see the film.

The intent of the tax is to reduce consumption of fossil fuels by making them more expensive. No funds are actually allocated toward climate programs, let alone carbon offset projects so the fuel that is consumed will not be any more “climate friendly” or “carbon neutral” than before.

So… will people consume less fuel as a result of the carbon tax? Let’s do a quick calculation. It takes about 428 litres of gasoline to produce 1 tonne of CO2 equivalent GHG emissions. Gasoline prices in BC are around $1.17 per litre. So it costs a consumer about $500 to buy enough gasoline to produce 1 tonne of GHG. The BC carbon tax will increase that cost by $10 or 2% in the first year, increasing to $30 or 6% by 2012.

Does the BC government really believe that a 6% increase in fuel costs over 5 years is likely to cause anyone to reduce their fuel consumption?

I think not. One might expect a corresponding 6% decrease in fuel consumption, but more likely there will be no noticeable effect at all. Just look at the past 5 years. According to BCGasPrices.com, since 2003 gasoline prices in BC have increased around 70% (from about $0.70 per litre in 2003). That has had little noticeable effect on people’s fuel consumption, so what effect is an additional 6% increase over the next 5 years likely to have? I think none whatsoever.

Let’s do another calculation. There are carbon offset strategies (most notably methane capture from landfills, animal waste, or decaying plant matter) that offer proven, quantifiable GHG emission reductions for as little as $5/tonne (see www.carbonfund.org). At that rate the BC carbon tax of $30 per tonne would be enough to offset the GHG emissions from fossil fuel consumption 6 times over. According to a 2007 report, fossil fuels account for nearly 80% of BC’s GHG emissions. Therefore, if the carbon tax were put towards effective carbon offset and emissions reduction projects instead of being paid back to us in the form of reduced income tax, it appears that BC would be able to decrease its GHG emissions by almost 500%. In other words, BC could become carbon NEGATIVE, practically overnight if the carbon tax were spent in a useful manner.

How Gordon Campbell could come so close to doing something so good and then miss the mark entirely is beyond my comprehension. What is also beyond my comprehension is the level of praise he’s receiving for it. Hasn’t anybody else run the numbers?

Originally posted at www.IWillTry.org.

An artist in Seattle, Chris Jordan, explores what the statistics of consumption actually look like. For example, what do 106,000 aluminum cans look like (that’s the number consumed in the US every thirty seconds)?

Cans Seurat, 2007

Full image (60″x92″).

Partial zoom:

Detail at actual size:

Visit Chris Jordan’s website for many more Images of Consumption. What do 426,000 cell phones look like (the number retired in the US every day)? See his website to find out.

Originally posted at www.IWillTry.org.

There is hardly any direct sunlight here (Vancouver, BC) over the winter but I hope to extract some heat in the spring and fall for home heating and much more heat in the summer to heat a hot tub. I’ll likely have far too much heat in the summer so I will be installing silvered mylar under many of the panels to reflect most of the sunlight (unless I can dream up some other use for all that hot water).

Anyway, a couple weeks ago I worked up the curiosity to measure the temperature of my solar attic. I measured at 3 hour intervals over a 24 hour period using a digital weather station with logging capabilities. I measured once on a cloudy day and once on a sunny day for comparison. The following plots show the results.

What should you put on your sign? It would be great to point people to a website such as www.IWillTry.org for more information, but it’s certainly not necessary. You can display any message you like that expresses your concern and inspires action. I created a simple wooden sign for display in my garden as follows:

1. Cut a piece of wood to a nice size. If you have a router, add a nice profile to the edges. Print your text on the sign with a black felt pen. Then stain the wood with the stain of your choice (or none at all).	2. After a few minutes, wipe off the excess stain with a rag and allow the sign to dry for an hour or so. Then brush on a thick coat of outdoor polyurethane and allow the sign to dry overnight.	3. Nail a sign post to the back and insert your sign in the location of your choice.

Here are a few additional words of advice:

1. If you’re promoting a website, be vague and intriguing. A viewer is more likely to visit a website out of curiosity after seeing a sign that says “www.IWillTry.org – Will you?” than out of a sense of moral obligation after seeing a sign that says “www.IWillTry.org – Help stop global warming!”.

2. Be visible but not obtrusive. You want something your neighbors and visitors will notice, and be intrigued by, but that they won’t be annoyed by if they have to see it every day.

3. If your sign will be placed outside, make sure it will stand up to the elements. Some possibilities are:

4. Your creation will be all the more intriguing and influential if it is unique. Express your creativity.

Originally posted at www.IWillTry.org.

I have considered food-miles before from the perspective of reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from food transportation, but after reading the book I was pleasantly surprised to learn of many other benefits experienced by the authors, Alisa Smith and James MacKinnon. I attended a talk on food sustainability at UBC where they were guest speakers and I found it truely inspiring, to the point where I’m not only trying to buying more locally produced foods, but I’m growing some myself.

Some of the things you can look forward to when you eat locally produced foods are:

1. Better tasting food
2. More social interaction
3. Getting in touch with the seasons
4. Discovering new flavours
5. Reducing energy consumption and ghg emissions
6. Supporting small farms
7. Giving back to the local economy
8. Feeling more healthy

For the complete list and other information, visit http://www.100milediet.org.

1. The blog will allow viewers to subscribe anonymously and receive new postings via RSS feed. The wiki by comparison, provided no means for notification of new material, and required registration to receive notification of changes.

2. The blog will allow viewers to leave comments without registration while disallowing editing the content of articles. The wiki made no distinction between commenting and editing.

3. Despite many visitors to the wiki, the burden of registration and wiki syntax was too high for a non-technical audience to contribute. I hope that the blog format will lower the barrier and viewers will be more likely to participate in the conversation via comments. I’ll also be happy to create an account for anyone who would like to post their own articles here. Leave a comment on any article if interested.

4. Most of the articles in the wiki were descriptions of my personal projects or ideas. The likelyhood of collaboration (which is what wikis are best for) on this type of content seems minimal. Other than correcting the occasional typo, viewers simply left feedback rather than adding content to the articles. A blog is better suited to this type of content.

So what will become of the wiki? I’m just starting to learn what Wordpress blog software and extensions are capable of so I haven’t determined yet if the blog can replace all the useful features of the Wiki to my satisfaction. I suspect the wiki will continue to serve as a place for more detailed content to accompany blog posts. Time will tell.