Green

[au revoir]

GREEN

Green becomes the most popular word lately, at least in the US. Green has been associated with color, grass, healthy, nature etc. A lot of people talk about green. There are green projects, green automobiles and green buildings.

You would get tax credit if you build a "green building”. You would get professional credit (which I myself don’t know what it is) if you use "green materials”. Now people start to use green materials. News about green project is everywhere.

But that's the trick. You would have to pay more / extra if you use green materials. You have to pay all the recycle processes when you use green materials. Does it mean that you don’t have to pay recycle processes if you don’t use green materials? I don’t know the answer. The same thing with that you pay extra for organic than inorganic fruits / vegetables. Why? I don’t know either.

Now the question is either you would like to pay the extra now or later. Green stuffs are more expensive than regular stuffs. Your tax credit maybe won't cover the extra money you pay for green stuffs. What should we do? Go green or not? My buddy told me that life is too short. We live young. Enjoy life while we are young. And when we are old….. Well, who knows what’s going to happen in the next 50 years, right?

I was told that the focus of green project is to work in harmony with the natural features and resources surrounding us, and to use materials that are sustainably grown or recycled rather than new materials from non-renewable resources.

Sounds complicated? Yes, it does. Why? Because we had ruined the nature. Now we try to go back to nature. Of course it becomes complicated.

Not too far from where I live there is a natural wood that I like to go with my friends. That’s the place where we can walk and enjoy the nature in a peaceful environment.

Sometimes I wonder, what’s the best way to go green or nature?

As I mentioned above, the purpose of green project is to work in harmony with nature. What’s the best way to be in harmony with nature?

The picture below tells you more than thousands words. The picture shows how I can be in harmony with nature in a very natural way.

What “green message” would you get from the picture?

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by yellowstud:
GREEN
But that's the trick. You would have to pay more / extra if you use green materials. You have to pay all the recycle processes when you use green materials. Does it mean that you don’t have to pay recycle processes if you don’t use green materials? I don’t know the answer. The same thing with that you pay extra for organic than inorganic fruits / vegetables. Why? I don’t know either.

That is a big problem. "Green" materials often cost more. AND if you track them down to find out why they cost more you usually find out that "green" materials require MORE, not less enviornmental resources to produce. The extra cost ends up in higher price. Often price is directly a measure of the environmental cost of the product.

Well, who knows what’s going to happen in the next 50 years, right?

In San Diego they had a law requiring solar panels to help make hot water. You could save on your monthly energy bill. BUT the initial cost would never be made up, including the initial environmental cost. Making solar panels uses large quantities of toxic chemicals, petrochemicals, labor and solvents. You never make up for the cost of producing, installing, and disposing of the "green" solar panels.

I was told that the focus of green project is to work in harmony with the natural features and resources surrounding us, and to use materials that are sustainably grown or recycled rather than new materials from non-renewable resources.

Mostly its political nonsense. Yes, it is generally good to use recycled materials. Road asphault is the highest percentage recycled material today.

Sounds complicated? Yes, it does. Why? Because we had ruined the nature. Now we try to go back to nature. Of course it becomes complicated.

About a millon humans could be hunter/gathereres on the earth. There are about 6 billion of us now. I heard an environmental scienteist today talking about the increase in food production caused by the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, about 15% more food. Without the CO2 lots of people would starve. Things are never as simple as politiicans want us to believe.

Of course we all would save a huge amount of natural resources if the human race stopped wasting resources on clothing. In winter they make sense, but half the year we could get along fine without them.

And such things as peeing in the garden would save billions of gallons of water every day while it made your garden grow better. But don't expect the average person to choose natural body acceptance.

Blessings
Bob

[johny]

Does it mean that you don’t have to pay recycle processes if you don’t use green materials? I don’t know the answer.

YES!
Most of all traditional technologies stacks the abundance of environmental problems at the future. That problems caused by cleaning costs will be solved by our next generations or them will just die out.
The green technologies are designed (if not a narrow case is just cheep consumerism trick, or fake green) to be more economical about "environmental footprint". Nothing is ideal human-made, those old technologies was not constructed by dumb people, they did it as cheaper and better. That is a main reason why green technologies never will be the same cheap as dirty technologies. Cheepest way is to pee in a kichen, to make a bowel in a dunes, but here you realize very soon such cheap technology is a bull**** and must be changed immediately, investing a money to build a `cabin with hearth at a door` and make it`s regular service. At the Global scale about technologies it are the same, only time scale is thousands times longer. And our generation is that parabolically peeing on a kitchen floor what must be cleaned by next generations. Just ordinary technologies are cheaper ONLY by one reason - them HIDE a very important paragraph of a costs balance - the FUTURE COSTS. If any would calculate it too, the green things ought to be cheapest. But as we (producers and consumers) have STOLEN those costs from our grandgrandchildren, we are able to sell out those traditional way produced things shameless and proud. Proud of what? Greediness? Blineyeness? Selfishness?

[johny]

Bobx

Often price is directly a measure of the environmental cost of the product.

No, never identical. Price is measure of WORK input in a balance with demand.
Example
Why stone made house (just pick up the stones and stick it with a 100 USD concrete) costs more than tons and tons of banana what may be demanded square kilometers be planted so that giant environmental resource was consumed.
I agree, some cases price may correlate with env resources, but that refers only to cases with similar work input. We are speaking about three coordinate Decart axis - price, resource usage and work usage. Here is one often forgotten axis - FUTURE COSTS. In a marginal price analysis exists two axis more, adittional. Namely demand and offer the same as balance between usage value and monetary value what forms a price hardness slope. For example - what is more valuable - safety matches or toilet porcelain? Matches may save your life, seat never, but seat is sure expensiver. Thus, all speak about green costs is high speculative if we not concertize what exactly is a case. That is a reason why often in env.sci uses such term as case-study.

[johny]

Sounds complicated? Yes, it does. Why? Because we had ruined the nature. Now we try to go back to nature

Generally You are right. Even Bible tells us
that everyone injuring a Planet will be injured by God. There is written that at far future everyone will build his own house, will sit under own planted fruit tree, and eat own hand produced food, and will have certain animals to care about. This picture stands very far from idea about personal chemical factory at kichen, or atomic electrostations once upon each 10 kilometers, and vehicles, vehicles and tractors everywhere.

Such World system is strongly encuraged without of a least impact of Bible by environmentalist`s small group named Strong Environmentalism. "We will destroy the factories", "we will come back into Holy Gaia" (Earth-Goddess). But somehow seems very rare people are really ready to go TOTALLY out of technologies. Pardon me if You can, but average American are much less ready for that as most of people at my land, if not are most rudest environment destroyers at whole Planet scale. Consumption of resources readable at UNO homepage are certifying such attitude (I`m not even mentioned Presidents decline to undersign such important international agreements for humankind survival as greenhouse gases act and freon acts - "ah, lets `em die out, we must live well this day").

So - congratulations if You personally are motivated and powerful enough to start life by anew, without of those bunch of mistakes made by previous generations setting humankind on a surely wrong way, but I afraid You shall have an extremely small number of similar minded people. Even here at CFI I guess, however Naturists and Environmentalists are generally very similarly thinking in many questions.

For example, my neighborous Lithuania have very strong environmentalists groups having lot of fun outdoors. Never I heard them would use to swim other way as ultimatively skinnydipping.
Non-naturist mass skinnydip.... of mainstream textilers.... Environmentalists....

What “green message” would you get from the picture?

Fine. I wish to be there now! But immagine now You there in a havy rain, snowstorm, or just ordinary hungry. Dont You be redy to spend a half of day to hunt a squirrel and other half of day to coook it over natural fire?? Oh yes, the fire must be made out of thunder as safety matches still unexists. Or better go to those damn McDonalds and ate up the unhealthy stomack.

[johny]

In San Diego they had a law requiring solar panels to help make hot water. BUT the initial cost would never be made up, including the initial environmental cost.

Similarly about vehicle catalytic smoke cleaners. Them are made of platinium, while on the Planet exists only two big platinium plants, Canada and Russian Karelia. Both emits so much a toxic fumes, what are not equal but is worser as those fumes catalists are economized at whole it`s work-life cycle (measured in CO2 equivalent potency units). Thus, only a good thing what gives us this "green technology" is that source of pollution are shifted far away out of cities.
FAKE environmental sustainability is widespread hiden advertisement method.

P.S. If You have heard exists even a younger superterm - ZERO EMMISSION technologies, for example Zeri Balticum and many other foundations - may be that would be capable to unite demand for things and green ideology?

P.P.S> Sorry for so many posts in a raw. But theme is SO interesting whilst You are so lazy to post between me and myself. I`ve been 11 years a leading specialist in a country about it all. Only second year I am out of it (State pays far to small).

[Sanslines]

In San Diego they had a law requiring solar panels to help make hot water. BUT the initial cost would never be made up, including the initial environmental cost.

A hot water solar panel can be very simple and economical in construction and not involves using loads of hazardous materials. Any first year mechanical engineering student can design and construct a solar panel from simple materials. The only hard part, if it is considered to be hard, is to position the solar collector to maximize exposure to the suns rays taking into consideration the different tracking of the sun as it arcs across the sky and through different paths throughout the year.

[shomymojo]

GREEN = the color of money...follow the money trail...and find out all you need to know...

[johny]

Shojomojo: As my language as russian language uses the expression "he had heavy GREEN snake biten". It means he boozed until the "loss of film". If English uses something similar at the sleng, its interesting parallel with an GREEN`S ideology, huh?

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by Sanslines:

quote:

In San Diego they had a law requiring solar panels to help make hot water. BUT the initial cost would never be made up, including the initial environmental cost.

A hot water solar panel can be very simple and economical in construction and not involves using loads of hazardous materials. Any first year mechanical engineering student can design and construct a solar panel from simple materials. The only hard part, if it is considered to be hard, is to position the solar collector to maximize exposure to the suns rays taking into consideration the different tracking of the sun as it arcs across the sky and through different paths throughout the year.

Yes, a simple system can be designed by anyone, but you don't get your house approved by the building inspector regulators unless you have more complicaitons. Over the decades there have been many simple systems that cost a lot, messed up the house, took a lot of constant labor to operate, and didn't work very well.

The rant about San Diego's requirement came originally from a friend who was a very expert mechanical engineer, the guy who designed the heating and cooling system on the Space Shuttle. He had spent several years studying available heat from the sun and comparing costs of installing solar panels. He liked the idea emotionally, but couldn't figure out a way to make the benefits outway the costs, or even come reasonably close.

As someone observed, the cost includes a lot of labor, which is true. Labor always has environmental cost. The labor to construct or manufactur things means more people having more "carbon footprints" among other environmental cost of labor.

Don't get me wrong, I want to be environmentally friendly as much as anyone. I just believe that the environment needs real answeres, not just pie in the sky knee jerk nonsense. I even owned a house with large solar panels on the roof for space heating and hot water help. They worked great in the summer but not in the winter when heat was needed. I bought the house with them in place so I don't konw what the cost had been. Even without any initial cost (they were already there) I was never sure if the benefits saved more energy than the pumps, fans, etc., used to operate them.

Blessings

Bob

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by johny:
Similarly about vehicle catalytic smoke cleaners. Them are made of platinium, while on the Planet exists only two big platinium plants, Canada and Russian Karelia. Both emits so much a toxic fumes, what are not equal but is worser as those fumes catalists are economized at whole it`s work-life cycle (measured in CO2 equivalent potency units). Thus, only a good thing what gives us this "green technology" is that source of pollution are shifted far away out of cities.
FAKE environmental sustainability is widespread hiden advertisement method.

Right on Johny. Shifting the environmental cost often sounds good, but for the whole world it is a false benefit. Another example is the electric cars that many people propose. They shift the environmental cost to some large coal fired electric generating station, but its not in their back yard. Overall the environmental cost of electric vehicles is more than gas vehicles because of inefficiency of transmission, storage, etc., but the "green" weenies always talk about them.

Blessings
Bob

[Sanslines]

The rant about San Diego's requirement came originally from a friend who was a very expert mechanical engineer, the guy who designed the heating and cooling system on the Space Shuttle. He had spent several years studying available heat from the sun and comparing costs of installing solar panels. He liked the idea emotionally, but couldn't figure out a way to make the benefits outway the costs, or even come reasonably close.

Many factors go into a decision as to what the payback time to install a solar hot water heating system will be. How large is the family and how much hot water do they use? The greater the need for hot water, the larger and more expensive the system. Does the individual or family have a spa or swimming pool where they can also preheat the water with solar collectors?

[johny]

A hot water solar panel can be very simple and economical in construction and not involves using loads of hazardous materials.
***
Many factors go into a decision as to what the payback time to install a solar hot water heating system will be. How large is the family and how much hot water do they use?

I have read about certain russian construction under KISS law (keep it stupidly simple). Panel consists of a one wall glass over the tiny air gap; under what stays ordinary wave shaped anodized aluminum folio, black of course. Under that folio is wider air gap in those places made by waves, leading to fan what mildly blows in the air. Air after it has warmed in panel goes to under cellar made of natural stones (granite, bazalt) so that stones under house are warmed during daylight hours. At night fan is reversed so that air circulates between room and under cellar. Such system was tested at Moscow's damn cold climate and gave a 60% of heating costs economized.
Fine, yet now shall start to calculate. House area 300 m2, at 100 W/m2 rate it has need for 30 kW heater. Thus, economized part is 0,6*30 000*(365*0,5)*24*3600=2,8 GJ of energy. At the cost of mazut-oil about 0,20 pounds per liter and energetic output around 48 MJ/kg it makes a cost economized annually 2,8/48*1000*0,2=12 pounds or 24 dollars ANNUALLY. What a really great technology..... For building self-cost about at least tens of thousands if not more what must be paid back to the bank.

Yet to get clue back to the topic, its logical to be so costly. Burning a fossils we steel maximum from our grandgrandchildren, that is why fossils are SO much cheaper today comparing the full expenses shown at Solar heating costs. Just cleaning costs (future costs) of fossiles burning are, perhaps, greater as whole added value of humankind ever produced in a thousands of years of existence.
But even realizing it`s seriousness even I am unable to swim affront a flow, only I was able to shift to wood in my heating system. I use a innovative heater where I put until 300 liters firewood or pellets or anything burnable, and then it burns from above downward at least three days long, self regulating burning intensity by telescopic air blower injector and thermo-element on air inlet. The efficiency by a papers are 97%, but as the inventor of system is Lithuanian (it means Polish habits suspected) I guess sooner it may be around 90%. Wood are recycling the CO2 emissions. By the way, carcinogenic emissions of wood-stove is highest, even higher as coal burned, but accordingly some 5 years old Swedish dissertation wood simultaneously emits even a bunch (36 pcs) of antioxidants (poliphenolic) capable to nullify carcinogenic effects of wood fume.
God wasn't at kid-mind when gave us a wood to burn for get the heat.
**********
P.S. Wow! Just realized. The CFI clock shows a yesterday midday. Yet I have allready next day, some minutes after midnight. Im gonna sleep. Bue, bue, until morning. Hope Ill have a good sleep after watching that 6~logy (movie) Children of Corn. If Ill awake with a scream, say it all just a fiction.

[Sanslines]

A very simple solar hot water collector involves nothing more then a wooden box with a snaking pattern of black painted copper pipe, a black painted box back, and a translucent cover. Always remember, if it is reflecting, then it is not collecting.

[Geo]

Yellowstud, your picture is awesome! Walking down a road through the woods naked is one of the most peaceful activities I can think of. Certainly the more we can be naked, the less clothes there are to wash and dry, so that helps with our "green efforts". Would love to be able to be in your group of friends enjoying nature together in a peaceful environment.