Home Sweet Home

After the shock of the oil crisis, there was a surge of activity from governments and industry in the fields of conservation and the use of alternative energy sources. But the recent oil glut and the fall in oil prices have lulled many back into the old belief that cheap energy is here to stay.

At present, three-quarters of world energy consumption comes from nonrenewable “hard- energy” sources - a third of this amount is oil, a quarter coal, and the rest from natural gas. The other quarter of world usage is supplied by amixture of nuclear power, hydropower, and biomass. In developing countries, however, there is heavy dependence on biomass, and the burning of fuelwood and animal dung is resulting in serious environmental destruction.

Our reliance on these nonrenewable, largely fossil-fuel sources is not only shortsighted (predictions show that unless we make drastic reductions in consumption they will become scarce, expensive, and soon depleted), but also environmentally dangerous (acid rain and the potentially disastrous climatic change caused by greenhouse gases).

The need for a new global energy strategy is urgent and the transition to a low-energy future, reliant on benign and sustainable renewable sources, is something each of us can influence locally, while still retaining acceptable standards of comfort. The goal is then to make the maximum use of natural, “soft-energy” sources - the sun, wind, and water - and to site or protect your home so that it requires a minimum of supplementary energy.

Supplementary fuel choices

To balance the energy deficit from alternative energy sources in the home you have, depending on your locality, a choice of gas, coal, oil, or wood, as well as electricity generated from central supplies or perhaps locally from sun, wind, and water. But for the reasons given above, you should start to think of fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas - more as back-up energy sources. If the rigorous standards recently introduced in Oregon become generally accepted, the only way that you will be able to enjoy a fire in the future will be in high-performance stoves with efficient emission controls on smoke and gases.

Like other combustion products, wood has the major disadvantage of being a source of pollution. But despite this, it is generally viewed as a good ecological fuel source, since it is both renewable and sustainable, provided that it comes from properly managed forests. But recent global developments may be changing this picture. In industrialized countries, although supplies can be increased, acid rain and forest fires have devastated large areas of woodland and this will have a significant impact on future availability.

Once the political will exists, waste heat from, for example, power stations or industrial plants can be used to heat large residential areas organized in district-heating projects. Battersea Power Station in London, before it was taken out of service, was one of the few to make use of some of its waste energy. Some of this heated large apartment blocks, housing 11,000 people, on the opposite side of the Thames river. In Iceland, the energy of the planet itself has been put to work and volcanic springs are used to heat whole towns. District-heating projects have had their problems in the past, but with improved and cleaner technology, such as the highly efficient and economic Combined Heat and Power (CHP) method, and the new ideas of “energy from waste” (where plastics are incinerated in low-emission furnaces to produce heat and electricity), these schemes are likely to become more generally applicable and widespread. Latest developments are heading in the direction of “Micro-CHP”, which uses local, small-scale generators.

Electricity is often claimed to be the cleanest and most efficient form of energy. Whereas this may be true once it reaches the home, these claims depend on how and where the electricity is produced. Being mostly generated from coal and oil, there is a global problem of air and water pollution, made more serious by the presence of greenhouse gases. Hydroelectric projects are notorious worldwide for destroying the environments of rivers and lakes with huge dams and reservoirs. In general, power stations are only about 30 per cent efficient- the remaining 70 per cent of fossil-fuel input is wasted as heat. The nuclear alternative is unacceptable to many and radioactive wastes represent a menace too dangerous to sanction.

Wind and water have been used for centuries as a power source and they can also be used to generate electricity. But they both need expensive equipment, which is unlikely to be cost effective unless you live in a remote area without access to normal supplies. Wind farms may prove more viable but their visual impact, being sited as they must on hilltops, plus the disturbance to radio, TV, and microwave communications, are disadvantages.

Solar electricity produced from photovoltaic cells on site at home is an attractive alternative. It bypasses the problems mentioned above and is becoming increasingly competitive with other sources of energy. In North America, Australia, and many developing countries there is growing interest in domestic solar electricity systems, even though at present they may retain a link with mains power to provide a boost on cloudy days. It is now feasible to become self-sufficient and, in some situations, even to sell surplus power to a local utility.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
Home Fuel and Power, Get rid of oil crisis

• Home Energy Conservation continue...
• Outdoor bathing
• Living Room Lighting Styles part 2
• Live House Colour and Pattern Part3
• Increasing and decreasing daylight continue…
• Natural living spaces
• The energy-efficient home continue...
• Put into Action: Home Solar systems
• Home Energy Conservation
• The cool home