the Best of BaronRenfrew: you should read this
Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2015 7:49 am
Here's a few items I wrote on the old site that I believe should be copied and pasted here:
I am upset that we live in a world where "making money" is more important than "the greater good" or "doing the right thing."
This means that problems which could be solved; i.e. climate change, pollution, human health, some diseases, etc. are either ignored, avoided, or the existence of the problem is denied, especially if someone will lose money.. or not make money... by solving the problem.
There is a thread about "chickens in winter" which turned into a thread about drinking water, wells, cisterns, and water pollution.
I thought about a radio documentary on CBC where they talked about good design, and I forget the specific details, but the architect (an older lady) had built a new building on the University of BC campus. It had city water but not city sewer, the outlet water went to a garden of water plants and then to other uses. The plants were chosen from NASA studies for space travel and plants that clean water. The city inspector gave a conditional approval for the system based on water tests to be conducted a month after the building was in use. The water tests were sent, the city inspector called back all angry and demanded more water tests. The "sewer" water outlet on the far side of the garden was cleaner than the city water being piped in to the building.
ozone layer:: we used to use R-22 as a refrigerant for a/c units and freezers etc. but it did damage to the ozone layer when released to the atmosphere. Companies fought that they couldn't change as replacements would be more expensive. When they did the research and
changed to other refrigerants such as R-410a or R-407c, it was cheaper than the old system and saved money!
Energy consumption: in the first energy crisis of the early 1970's the Canadian Gov't agency CMHC commisioned a house with south facing windows, two feet roof overhang (so the sun was off the house in the summer but in the windows in winter), triple glazed windows, and very thick walls with high insulation. It was called the Saskatchewan house. To heat in winter and cool in summer cost almost nothing: a great success in energy efficiency. Being Canada, we wrote a report and forgot about it (instead of incorporating the ideas into all construction). In the 1980's some Germans "rediscovered it" and built new versions, calling it the "Passiv Haus". Today there are 40,000 "passiv" buildings in Germany, with many new materials and designs, world leaders in energy efficient designs.
At least Mike Holmes has picked up the ball with new housing projects, many on native reserves, at a cost similiar to "conventional" house designs.
This is one answer to climate change, buildings that don't "consume" energy (elctricity, oil, gas etc) but actually produce electricity and help clean water and clean the air (green roofs).
Buildings are a source of 20% of co2 greenhouse gas.
If the Scandinavians (Sweden) take the heat from creamatoriums to heat other houses and buildings, why can't we do that here? Or heat from kitchens (pizza places!) or bakeries (commercial bakeries like Mr Christies in Etobicoke are huge)...
If the main prison in Rawanda can harvest gas from human sewage to cook food, instead of cutting down trees for charcoal, why can't we do something like that here?
Windmills: i think with some effort on energy efficiency we can do without them, big and ugly messing up the landscape, and two years ago a guy in Scandinavia (as reported on Dwelle or dw-world.de ) won an award for an invention that reduces 90% of the noise and vibration and a lot of drag on the windmill blades. At the wingtip a blade that juts off at an odd angle. As seen on many jet planes where there is a small blade that goes up and back at the end of the wing.
i haven't seen one yet on a windmill.
Economics: there's a great one. If we can't measure it it has no value. To quote Raplh Nader, the best thing for the economy is a car accident. The tow trucks, police, ambulance attendants, hospitals, physiotherapists, all get work to do. not to mention the mechanics or better yet two new cars! wait... there's something missing in that calculation???
What's the economic value of clean water or clean air? what's the medical cost of cancers, asthma, and the days of work lost?
Our tax system is based on consumable items. how much tax does our government get from bottled water or sugar water(soda, cola etc.) compared to tap water?
what if someone designed a car that consumed half the gas of current vehicles.. a small car that burned 3L per 100km's instead of 6 or 7 (50mpg).. the 1995 Honda Civic Vx (non-hybrid) did that. or the 2002 VW Polo diesel, Transport Canada had one for testing, the testers loved it! (yes VW is in deep crap, no reason they couldn't install urea tanks for emissions as GM (Opel) and BMW and Mercedes do.)
Or a half-ton truck with a small v6 like the 1995 Chev a friend had (until soneone hit him and it was written off)
conspiracy theory? I have a Car and Driver magazine where they talk about the evaporator carburator from the 1970's on v8 cars of that era that got 100 mpg. I know of many stories of backyard mechanics doing the same. Or the full size RV in a "secret" testing facility that gets 35mpg where current available RV's get 5 or 10.
Or the diesel engine that mixes exhaust with fresh air to double fuel mileage (patent owned by an oil company)
not to mention the cars that run on water like Stan Meyer's water car (on youtube). too bad he was poisioned and his equipment disappeared.
basic truth: we only harvest 25% of the energy potential of the fuel we burn, so in theory we could quadruple fuel mileage
I am upset that we live in a world where "making money" is more important than "the greater good" or "doing the right thing."
This means that problems which could be solved; i.e. climate change, pollution, human health, some diseases, etc. are either ignored, avoided, or the existence of the problem is denied, especially if someone will lose money.. or not make money... by solving the problem.
There is a thread about "chickens in winter" which turned into a thread about drinking water, wells, cisterns, and water pollution.
I thought about a radio documentary on CBC where they talked about good design, and I forget the specific details, but the architect (an older lady) had built a new building on the University of BC campus. It had city water but not city sewer, the outlet water went to a garden of water plants and then to other uses. The plants were chosen from NASA studies for space travel and plants that clean water. The city inspector gave a conditional approval for the system based on water tests to be conducted a month after the building was in use. The water tests were sent, the city inspector called back all angry and demanded more water tests. The "sewer" water outlet on the far side of the garden was cleaner than the city water being piped in to the building.
ozone layer:: we used to use R-22 as a refrigerant for a/c units and freezers etc. but it did damage to the ozone layer when released to the atmosphere. Companies fought that they couldn't change as replacements would be more expensive. When they did the research and
changed to other refrigerants such as R-410a or R-407c, it was cheaper than the old system and saved money!
Energy consumption: in the first energy crisis of the early 1970's the Canadian Gov't agency CMHC commisioned a house with south facing windows, two feet roof overhang (so the sun was off the house in the summer but in the windows in winter), triple glazed windows, and very thick walls with high insulation. It was called the Saskatchewan house. To heat in winter and cool in summer cost almost nothing: a great success in energy efficiency. Being Canada, we wrote a report and forgot about it (instead of incorporating the ideas into all construction). In the 1980's some Germans "rediscovered it" and built new versions, calling it the "Passiv Haus". Today there are 40,000 "passiv" buildings in Germany, with many new materials and designs, world leaders in energy efficient designs.
At least Mike Holmes has picked up the ball with new housing projects, many on native reserves, at a cost similiar to "conventional" house designs.
This is one answer to climate change, buildings that don't "consume" energy (elctricity, oil, gas etc) but actually produce electricity and help clean water and clean the air (green roofs).
Buildings are a source of 20% of co2 greenhouse gas.
If the Scandinavians (Sweden) take the heat from creamatoriums to heat other houses and buildings, why can't we do that here? Or heat from kitchens (pizza places!) or bakeries (commercial bakeries like Mr Christies in Etobicoke are huge)...
If the main prison in Rawanda can harvest gas from human sewage to cook food, instead of cutting down trees for charcoal, why can't we do something like that here?
Windmills: i think with some effort on energy efficiency we can do without them, big and ugly messing up the landscape, and two years ago a guy in Scandinavia (as reported on Dwelle or dw-world.de ) won an award for an invention that reduces 90% of the noise and vibration and a lot of drag on the windmill blades. At the wingtip a blade that juts off at an odd angle. As seen on many jet planes where there is a small blade that goes up and back at the end of the wing.
i haven't seen one yet on a windmill.
Economics: there's a great one. If we can't measure it it has no value. To quote Raplh Nader, the best thing for the economy is a car accident. The tow trucks, police, ambulance attendants, hospitals, physiotherapists, all get work to do. not to mention the mechanics or better yet two new cars! wait... there's something missing in that calculation???
What's the economic value of clean water or clean air? what's the medical cost of cancers, asthma, and the days of work lost?
Our tax system is based on consumable items. how much tax does our government get from bottled water or sugar water(soda, cola etc.) compared to tap water?
what if someone designed a car that consumed half the gas of current vehicles.. a small car that burned 3L per 100km's instead of 6 or 7 (50mpg).. the 1995 Honda Civic Vx (non-hybrid) did that. or the 2002 VW Polo diesel, Transport Canada had one for testing, the testers loved it! (yes VW is in deep crap, no reason they couldn't install urea tanks for emissions as GM (Opel) and BMW and Mercedes do.)
Or a half-ton truck with a small v6 like the 1995 Chev a friend had (until soneone hit him and it was written off)
conspiracy theory? I have a Car and Driver magazine where they talk about the evaporator carburator from the 1970's on v8 cars of that era that got 100 mpg. I know of many stories of backyard mechanics doing the same. Or the full size RV in a "secret" testing facility that gets 35mpg where current available RV's get 5 or 10.
Or the diesel engine that mixes exhaust with fresh air to double fuel mileage (patent owned by an oil company)
not to mention the cars that run on water like Stan Meyer's water car (on youtube). too bad he was poisioned and his equipment disappeared.
basic truth: we only harvest 25% of the energy potential of the fuel we burn, so in theory we could quadruple fuel mileage