It's summer in Tahoe now which means there are regular threats of forest fires. There's also a lot more police work due to the much larger numbers of tourists and weekend visitors.
Modern police work and modern firefighting - the kinds that quickly dispatch qualified, well-trained first responders to dangerous situations - could not happen without fire engines, police cars, ambulances, occasionally helicopters and reconnaissance aircraft, and up to date wide area weather forecasts, not to mention drivable roads. And every one of these things depends on the ready availability of affordable gasoline, diesel and airplane fuel.
As I write this in 2013, there's plenty of liquid fossil fuels available, mostly at below $4/gallon. And even in these difficult economic times, our local governments are still able to pay for reasonable numbers of police and fire fighters, plus their training and health care, not to mention upkeep and replacements for all the necessary gear: police cars, emergency equipment, fire defense and suppression tools, an underground network of water pipes and hydrants. Add to that periodic burns to clear out underbrush and we have a pretty good system of responding to fires, law enforcement emergencies and other first responder situations.
But as we look forward a decade, and perhaps sooner, a few warning signs become visible: We're running out of the easy to find, easy to extract oil that we depend upon for reliable affordable liquid fuels. We're also starting to "run out" of the long term weather pattern we've grown used to at the Lake: cold winters with lots of snow that last well into summer in the higher elevations. Instead we're starting to get the occasional bigger storm that is followed by sunny skies and warmer temperatures which melt some of the snow that just fell. Spring snow melt occurs earlier too. We're left with hotter, drier summers which can increase the dangers of wildfires.
Fortunately, right now conditions related to fighting fires, law enforcement and emergency response seem acceptable and affordable to the Tahoe region. We'd be making a mistake if we planned on these conditions continuing for more than a decade or so. Within that time, it's almost certain that the prices Americans pay for liquid fuels will increase substantially. We'll also be facing a hotter, drier climate with increased risks of fires. Whether Lake levels will stay where they are or decrease is too difficult to predict.
It's not too soon to start thinking about how we, as Tahoe dwellers, can plan on getting by with lower levels of police and fire fighter support. Our lives may one day depend on it.
Friday, July 19, 2013
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Road and Pipe Maintenance vs. 400 PPM
Summer season is approaching and Memorial Day is around the corner. In the Tahoe area, as in many other northern regions of the United States, this means we're enter the the season of road maintenance and water/sewer pipe upkeep.
Anyone who has traveled to or around the Lake in the Summer has almost certainly seen some highway or local street maintenance. Some of that may be actual road repairs; some may be repairs or replacements of underground water or sewage pipes. Without well maintained roads and reliable water and sewer pipes, life in the Tahoe area would be almost impossible. At least it would be impossible for the great majority of "modern" people who now live here, as well as any visitors.
All of these repairs require powerful gasoline or diesel powered equipment. Road repairs sometimes apply new asphalt or concrete, materials that require fossil fuels to manufacture and transport.
So, what's the problem with fixing our roads and keeping our piping system working? There's no problem except that these activities require substantial amounts of fossil fuels, and unless we're prepared instead to employ lots of strong men and women with shovels and have the jobs take far longer, there's no alternative right now. So what's the problem with that; why can't we just keep repairing roads and pipes the way we've been doing it for the last 50 years?
The short answer is that the concentration of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere just recently crossed 400 PPM, a level not seen for at least 4 million years. If we continue burning fossil fuels at current rates of consumption (and countries like China and India are increasing their consumption), we'll cross 450 PPM by 2037. That's the absolute maximum upper limit that climate scientists tell us we can go to still keep the earth's average temperature at not more than 2 degrees C (3.8 degrees F) above historical averages. 2 degrees C isn't safe: It's merely a value that scientists think the human population can tolerate. There will still be major climate changes: fiercer storms, a rising ocean, melting glaciers, decrease in arable lands, less snowfall, more drought in drier areas.
So what's that got to do with road and pipe maintenance in the Tahoe area? We can't be the only ones causing global warming, can we? Of course we aren't. Burning fossil fuels, especially coal, is bad wherever it happens. But unless the United States and China begin quickly reducing their consumption of oil and coal, we'll stay on the track we are on. And this track leads to blowing by 450 PPM and into the realm of climate disaster... into the realm of making earth a planet that is much less able to support human life.
But we can't stop maintaining our roads and pipes, can we? We don't really have to do this, do we? Right now there is little choice. If we want the Tahoe area to be inhabitable by modern humans, then we need roads and water and sewer infrastructure. Can the maintenance be done without using fossil fuels? Right now, it appears not. The available heavy equipment that does the digging and related tasks is all powered by gasoline or diesel fuel. There's no alternative, though it may be possible to develop equipment that uses fuel cells or other technologies that are what's called "carbon neutral" - meaning they don't add new CO2 to the atmosphere.
We have a long way to go before we can maintain our local infrastructure in ways that do not destroy the earth's climate. And we don't have much time to find out how. So it's vital that we support research and development into projects that can provide affordable, sustainable energy supplies to our homes, business, transportation and life support systems.... and that means roads and water/sewer pipes.
If we can't provide clean water and functional sewage systems, and low pollution ways for people to live and travel in the Tahoe area, then most humans will simply pack up and leave. And if we do nothing, the earth's climate will make it increasingly difficult to live anywhere, including at the Lake.
Anyone who has traveled to or around the Lake in the Summer has almost certainly seen some highway or local street maintenance. Some of that may be actual road repairs; some may be repairs or replacements of underground water or sewage pipes. Without well maintained roads and reliable water and sewer pipes, life in the Tahoe area would be almost impossible. At least it would be impossible for the great majority of "modern" people who now live here, as well as any visitors.
All of these repairs require powerful gasoline or diesel powered equipment. Road repairs sometimes apply new asphalt or concrete, materials that require fossil fuels to manufacture and transport.
So, what's the problem with fixing our roads and keeping our piping system working? There's no problem except that these activities require substantial amounts of fossil fuels, and unless we're prepared instead to employ lots of strong men and women with shovels and have the jobs take far longer, there's no alternative right now. So what's the problem with that; why can't we just keep repairing roads and pipes the way we've been doing it for the last 50 years?
The short answer is that the concentration of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere just recently crossed 400 PPM, a level not seen for at least 4 million years. If we continue burning fossil fuels at current rates of consumption (and countries like China and India are increasing their consumption), we'll cross 450 PPM by 2037. That's the absolute maximum upper limit that climate scientists tell us we can go to still keep the earth's average temperature at not more than 2 degrees C (3.8 degrees F) above historical averages. 2 degrees C isn't safe: It's merely a value that scientists think the human population can tolerate. There will still be major climate changes: fiercer storms, a rising ocean, melting glaciers, decrease in arable lands, less snowfall, more drought in drier areas.
So what's that got to do with road and pipe maintenance in the Tahoe area? We can't be the only ones causing global warming, can we? Of course we aren't. Burning fossil fuels, especially coal, is bad wherever it happens. But unless the United States and China begin quickly reducing their consumption of oil and coal, we'll stay on the track we are on. And this track leads to blowing by 450 PPM and into the realm of climate disaster... into the realm of making earth a planet that is much less able to support human life.
But we can't stop maintaining our roads and pipes, can we? We don't really have to do this, do we? Right now there is little choice. If we want the Tahoe area to be inhabitable by modern humans, then we need roads and water and sewer infrastructure. Can the maintenance be done without using fossil fuels? Right now, it appears not. The available heavy equipment that does the digging and related tasks is all powered by gasoline or diesel fuel. There's no alternative, though it may be possible to develop equipment that uses fuel cells or other technologies that are what's called "carbon neutral" - meaning they don't add new CO2 to the atmosphere.
We have a long way to go before we can maintain our local infrastructure in ways that do not destroy the earth's climate. And we don't have much time to find out how. So it's vital that we support research and development into projects that can provide affordable, sustainable energy supplies to our homes, business, transportation and life support systems.... and that means roads and water/sewer pipes.
If we can't provide clean water and functional sewage systems, and low pollution ways for people to live and travel in the Tahoe area, then most humans will simply pack up and leave. And if we do nothing, the earth's climate will make it increasingly difficult to live anywhere, including at the Lake.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
The Death of Snow Plows
It's now May in the Tahoe area. Rains are falling and temperatures are in the 40s - 50s. So why am I thinking about snow plows? Because for at least six months of the year, snowfall is a frequent presence, and without plows to clear the roads, motorized travel can be impossible. Anything over a few inches of fresh snow can make driving, even for those with four wheel drive vehicles, too difficult to attempt. Without reliable snow plows, we can rule out delivery of food, medical supplies, gasoline, hardware store items. In less than a week, store shelves would be empty of items critical to survival.
Do we really have anything to worry about? Aren't we guaranteed that country and state governments will keep the roads clear... forever? No such guarantee exists. Global oil production has been essentially flat since 2005.
Why does that matter in the Tahoe area, or anywhere else, for that matter? It matters because it indicates that we have reached a peak, a somewhat flat peak for now, but that at some point in the relatively near future (probably within a decade or two), global oil production will start its irreversible trend downward. When that happens, oil prices, and thus gasoline and diesel prices, will rise. Well, so what, can't the country just pay more for gasoline to keep the snow plows running? Yes, of course it can, but only in the short term. As the years go by and oil prices continue to rise, the use of the personal motor car wil decline and less people will travel to Tahoe as a vacation getaway. That means less highway taxes for governments and less of a motivation to plow every road currently attended to.
At some point, governments will be forced to ask: What are the most critical roads, because those are the only one we can afford to plow? That leads to even less people being able to spend some of their winter months in the Tahoe area... which puts less cars on the roads, and provides the governments with even less of an incentive to use snow plows. Sooner or later - unless residents of snowy areas like Tahoe find ways to pay more money for snow plowing - the road conditions could become undrivable after snow storms. [The other wild card, besides oil prices, is global climate change. We'll probably see less total snow, and lighter amounts, but still quite enough to seriously clog the roads for the likely future.]
I'm not predicting that "the death of snow plows" will happen any time soon. But as energy prices rise, and the overall economy contracts, it becomes more and more difficult for governments to provide services. Priorities will have to be reestablished. Can we count on snow plows clearing the Tahoe roads indefinitely? Look at the struggles to repair public schools, provide medical care for those without insurance, care for the elderly, fight foreign wars, keep Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alive. It's not hard to see that in an era of contracting economies, many regional government officials may not see snow plows as a top priority.
So what can we do? It's time to talk about what are the vital streets, how to keep them clear of winter snow as revenues decline, and what backup plans we will need when these streets cannot always be plowed. If we don't address this issue, then many parts of the Lake Tahoe community become uninhabitable during winter months.... just as was the case a century and a half ago. Is this what we want?
Do we really have anything to worry about? Aren't we guaranteed that country and state governments will keep the roads clear... forever? No such guarantee exists. Global oil production has been essentially flat since 2005.
Why does that matter in the Tahoe area, or anywhere else, for that matter? It matters because it indicates that we have reached a peak, a somewhat flat peak for now, but that at some point in the relatively near future (probably within a decade or two), global oil production will start its irreversible trend downward. When that happens, oil prices, and thus gasoline and diesel prices, will rise. Well, so what, can't the country just pay more for gasoline to keep the snow plows running? Yes, of course it can, but only in the short term. As the years go by and oil prices continue to rise, the use of the personal motor car wil decline and less people will travel to Tahoe as a vacation getaway. That means less highway taxes for governments and less of a motivation to plow every road currently attended to.
At some point, governments will be forced to ask: What are the most critical roads, because those are the only one we can afford to plow? That leads to even less people being able to spend some of their winter months in the Tahoe area... which puts less cars on the roads, and provides the governments with even less of an incentive to use snow plows. Sooner or later - unless residents of snowy areas like Tahoe find ways to pay more money for snow plowing - the road conditions could become undrivable after snow storms. [The other wild card, besides oil prices, is global climate change. We'll probably see less total snow, and lighter amounts, but still quite enough to seriously clog the roads for the likely future.]
I'm not predicting that "the death of snow plows" will happen any time soon. But as energy prices rise, and the overall economy contracts, it becomes more and more difficult for governments to provide services. Priorities will have to be reestablished. Can we count on snow plows clearing the Tahoe roads indefinitely? Look at the struggles to repair public schools, provide medical care for those without insurance, care for the elderly, fight foreign wars, keep Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alive. It's not hard to see that in an era of contracting economies, many regional government officials may not see snow plows as a top priority.
So what can we do? It's time to talk about what are the vital streets, how to keep them clear of winter snow as revenues decline, and what backup plans we will need when these streets cannot always be plowed. If we don't address this issue, then many parts of the Lake Tahoe community become uninhabitable during winter months.... just as was the case a century and a half ago. Is this what we want?
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Transportation
Everyone who lives anywhere near the Lake is at an elevation of at least 6225 feet. That means, among other things, that our daily temperatures and road conditions limit bicycling to perhaps six months of the year (May - October). For the rest of the year, we either walk (or trudge, if there's snow) to and from our destinations. Unless we need travel more than about a mile. Then we have to rely on either personal cars, public transit or private conveyance (taxis, limos). All of these run on gasoline, except for most of the buses, which use natural gas. All of the snow plows, which make road travel possible in the winter, use gasoline. Every tourist or part-time resident gets here by car, bus, train or airplane, or some combination of these.
While there are some hybrid vehicles and a few all electrics on the road, virtually all of Tahoe's transportation needs are met primarily by petroleum and secondarily be natural gas. To state the obvious: Neither of these occurs naturally in the Tahoe area. We have to import all the gasoline, diesel, natural gas (and for that matter, electricity) that we use for transportation. Making this situation more difficult is that there is very limited public transportation in the Tahoe area. For example: Try traveling from the SF Bay area by train to Incline Village, or South Lake Tahoe. This requires either hiring a taxi or taking one or more long bus rides. Any major increase in oil prices will have a very detrimental effect of Tahoe transportation: both because life becomes more expensive where our visitors life, and because it becomes more expensive and time consuming to get here and travel about while visiting.
There are no simple answers to dealing with the Tahoe area's strong reliance on imported fossil fuels. In the winter, life would be very difficult if the snow plows and school buses could not easily be fueled. Many residents would face extreme hardship if they could not easily afford or find gasoline. Buying food and getting to medical appointments would be very challenging. People who work in the Tahoe community, but live in Reno or Carson City, would have trouble getting to their jobs.
But because there is no "immediate emergency", it's very difficult to lobby for improved public transportation. Yet that's what will be needed if, or rather when, the price of gasoline and diesel means that increasing numbers of residents will no longer be able to afford private motor cars. If we want to keep the Tahoe area as a year round natural resort, retreat and just destination for tourists and vacationers, we need to think much harder about how we can develop and support robust, reliable and affordable systems of transportation. There is no magic bullet - this is a hard problem.
While there are some hybrid vehicles and a few all electrics on the road, virtually all of Tahoe's transportation needs are met primarily by petroleum and secondarily be natural gas. To state the obvious: Neither of these occurs naturally in the Tahoe area. We have to import all the gasoline, diesel, natural gas (and for that matter, electricity) that we use for transportation. Making this situation more difficult is that there is very limited public transportation in the Tahoe area. For example: Try traveling from the SF Bay area by train to Incline Village, or South Lake Tahoe. This requires either hiring a taxi or taking one or more long bus rides. Any major increase in oil prices will have a very detrimental effect of Tahoe transportation: both because life becomes more expensive where our visitors life, and because it becomes more expensive and time consuming to get here and travel about while visiting.
There are no simple answers to dealing with the Tahoe area's strong reliance on imported fossil fuels. In the winter, life would be very difficult if the snow plows and school buses could not easily be fueled. Many residents would face extreme hardship if they could not easily afford or find gasoline. Buying food and getting to medical appointments would be very challenging. People who work in the Tahoe community, but live in Reno or Carson City, would have trouble getting to their jobs.
But because there is no "immediate emergency", it's very difficult to lobby for improved public transportation. Yet that's what will be needed if, or rather when, the price of gasoline and diesel means that increasing numbers of residents will no longer be able to afford private motor cars. If we want to keep the Tahoe area as a year round natural resort, retreat and just destination for tourists and vacationers, we need to think much harder about how we can develop and support robust, reliable and affordable systems of transportation. There is no magic bullet - this is a hard problem.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Renewable vs. Sustainable Energy
In order to establish sane long-term policies about how we, as Tahoe residents, and every other citizen produce, transport and use energy we need to understand the difference between renewable and sustainable energy. These terms are frequently used interchangeably as if they meant the same thing. Let's learn why...
Renewable energy is an energy source that exists in forms that are continually, if sporadically, created by nature. Common examples would include wind, solar, tides. These supplies are created whenever the wind blows, sun shines or tides come in and go out. Another well-known renewable energy source is water power, which has been used widely since at least the Middle Ages. Rivers power water wheels or have water collected behind dams which when released powers electric turbines. Another energy source, geothermal (thermal energy from beneath the earth's surface) is often consider renewable because it purportedly exists in large "nearly inexhaustible" quantities.
All of these energy sources are considered relatively diffuse - widely distributed around the earth's surface, but concentrated more in some regions than others. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, are very concentrated forms of energy, which is the main reason humans have found oil, natural gas and coal so valuable. When first discovered, these fossil fuels seemed inexhaustible. It wasn't until the mid 1950s that solid evidence indicted this was not the case. The idea that oil, natural gas, and coal are finite resources and have a rate of extraction that peaks and then declines remains controversial, One of these versions of the theory, "peak oil," remains politically charged today even though peak oil theory is more of an objective observation than a theory yet to be proved.
What's the difference between renewable and sustainable energy? A sustainable energy source, which should more accurately be called a sustainable energy system, is capable of indefinitely supplying useful energy to human society while also generating enough energy to cover all the costs of manufacturing, transporting, installing, maintaining and eventually replacing the system. Using this definition, it's highly unlikely that any existing solar or wind system today would be considered sustainable. Renewable energy? Yes. But are these systems sustainable? Not unless they produce a good deal more energy than they now yield.
So, if renewable energy systems are not really sustainable, at least today, should we still keep developing them? Yes, we should because even though they are not currently sustainable, their efficiencies continue to improve and their prices are dropping. They still need a fossil fuel subsidy (in the form of manufacture, transport, and maintenance) and are therefore quite a ways from being truly sustainable. But some of solar approaches, especially passive solar (really, just good architectural design) and solar hot water heating show the most potential for becoming sustainable soon.
Can solar (or wind) electric systems ever become sustainable? Can they ever produce enough electricity to pay for their own manufacture, transport, installation, maintenance and eventual replacement? It's too soon to know with any certainty, but we have to make this a goal, even if we're not that close today.... unless we're prepared to abandon electricity! Therefore, the best approach right now is to adopt as many energy conservation techniques as we can afford in order to use as little electricity as we can somewhat comfortably survive on. Add to that: whenever possible, use electricity that is generated from renewable resources: solar, wind, water power.
In the Tahoe area we have a very good amount of solar energy, but very limited ways that we can turn that into electricity without damaging the natural environment. The wind energy we have fluctuates a great during over the course of a year, and during each day. As with solar power, we cannot easily install wind power systems, to capture this wind energy without impacting the natural beauty of the area. So, do we still have any options to use renewable energy, and hope that some day it becomes sustainable? In fact we do. They involve purchasing electricity generated by wind or solar sources, at sites that are on the national electric grid, so that we can, in effect, go renewable without installing systems at the Lake.
What else can we do? We can boost the amount of insulation where we live: more in the walls, more in the ceiling, and as good a set of windows as we can afford. This cuts down on the heat energy we have to pay for and makes our houses and apartments more affordable in the long term. And if you're lucky enough to be designing your own new house, go passive!
Renewable energy is an energy source that exists in forms that are continually, if sporadically, created by nature. Common examples would include wind, solar, tides. These supplies are created whenever the wind blows, sun shines or tides come in and go out. Another well-known renewable energy source is water power, which has been used widely since at least the Middle Ages. Rivers power water wheels or have water collected behind dams which when released powers electric turbines. Another energy source, geothermal (thermal energy from beneath the earth's surface) is often consider renewable because it purportedly exists in large "nearly inexhaustible" quantities.
All of these energy sources are considered relatively diffuse - widely distributed around the earth's surface, but concentrated more in some regions than others. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, are very concentrated forms of energy, which is the main reason humans have found oil, natural gas and coal so valuable. When first discovered, these fossil fuels seemed inexhaustible. It wasn't until the mid 1950s that solid evidence indicted this was not the case. The idea that oil, natural gas, and coal are finite resources and have a rate of extraction that peaks and then declines remains controversial, One of these versions of the theory, "peak oil," remains politically charged today even though peak oil theory is more of an objective observation than a theory yet to be proved.
What's the difference between renewable and sustainable energy? A sustainable energy source, which should more accurately be called a sustainable energy system, is capable of indefinitely supplying useful energy to human society while also generating enough energy to cover all the costs of manufacturing, transporting, installing, maintaining and eventually replacing the system. Using this definition, it's highly unlikely that any existing solar or wind system today would be considered sustainable. Renewable energy? Yes. But are these systems sustainable? Not unless they produce a good deal more energy than they now yield.
So, if renewable energy systems are not really sustainable, at least today, should we still keep developing them? Yes, we should because even though they are not currently sustainable, their efficiencies continue to improve and their prices are dropping. They still need a fossil fuel subsidy (in the form of manufacture, transport, and maintenance) and are therefore quite a ways from being truly sustainable. But some of solar approaches, especially passive solar (really, just good architectural design) and solar hot water heating show the most potential for becoming sustainable soon.
Can solar (or wind) electric systems ever become sustainable? Can they ever produce enough electricity to pay for their own manufacture, transport, installation, maintenance and eventual replacement? It's too soon to know with any certainty, but we have to make this a goal, even if we're not that close today.... unless we're prepared to abandon electricity! Therefore, the best approach right now is to adopt as many energy conservation techniques as we can afford in order to use as little electricity as we can somewhat comfortably survive on. Add to that: whenever possible, use electricity that is generated from renewable resources: solar, wind, water power.
In the Tahoe area we have a very good amount of solar energy, but very limited ways that we can turn that into electricity without damaging the natural environment. The wind energy we have fluctuates a great during over the course of a year, and during each day. As with solar power, we cannot easily install wind power systems, to capture this wind energy without impacting the natural beauty of the area. So, do we still have any options to use renewable energy, and hope that some day it becomes sustainable? In fact we do. They involve purchasing electricity generated by wind or solar sources, at sites that are on the national electric grid, so that we can, in effect, go renewable without installing systems at the Lake.
What else can we do? We can boost the amount of insulation where we live: more in the walls, more in the ceiling, and as good a set of windows as we can afford. This cuts down on the heat energy we have to pay for and makes our houses and apartments more affordable in the long term. And if you're lucky enough to be designing your own new house, go passive!
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Water: Supplies and Wastes
"Water, water, every where ... Nor any drop to drink" - Samuel Taylor Coleridge (The Rime of the Ancient Mariner). Tahoe residents are very fortunate to have such a wonderful resource as the Lake, which serves as the critical focus for our communities. The lake is a source of recreation, small amounts of food (fish), and of course drinking water.
But we can't safely drink the lake's water unless it's been purified or otherwise treated to remove dangerous bacteria and any other harmful agents that may have been detected. Purifying water on a scale to serve the Tahoe communities requires that the towns (water districts) use various chemical additives, including anti-bacterial agents. None of these chemicals are native to the Tahoe area. Water purification and delivery to regional homes and businesses requires electricity to run pumps and purifying equipment. In addition, purified water must be stored in large tanks, generally at higher elevations, so it may flow downhill to where it is used.
The short story is thus: we have plenty of water, but it takes energy and chemicals from sources outside the Tahoe region in order to pump and prepare the water so it's safe for us to drink. Without safe drinking water coming out of the tap, residents would be required to purchase small purification systems or camping units in order to have access to safe water. In addition: people would need to be careful not to get shower or bath water into their mouths or eyes. Tourists would be quite reluctant to visit a region without reliably safe drinking water.
What happens to water when we are done with it? We excrete it as urine in toilets and send the dish water, cooking water and washing water down the drains. To the best of my knowledge, all of this waste water is piped away from Tahoe communities to larger urban areas in Nevada or California. No waste water is recycled, ending up back in the lake. Piping water away requires expensive periodic maintenance of the sewage systems and installation of components that are transported from distant locations. It also takes energy to manage the wastes once they end up at a sewage processing facility.
It is considered unlikely that any Tahoe community would seek to build a local wastewater recycling facility "at the Lake". Even if they did, it's very questionable whether a regional authority like TRPA, or other local communities would support the action.
If the Tahoe region is to become more sustainable in the long run, it will need to make an assessment of how much energy, chemicals and maintenance expense are currently spent on water purification and waste processing. We would need to decide to what extent these services (safe drinking water, safe waste disposal) can be supported. Assuming they are high priorities, we need to make sure that our communities generate the economic revenue to support current water and waste processing. If such support becomes difficult to impossible in the future, we need to be ready to discuss alternative approaches to purifying water and safely recycling human wastes.
But we can't safely drink the lake's water unless it's been purified or otherwise treated to remove dangerous bacteria and any other harmful agents that may have been detected. Purifying water on a scale to serve the Tahoe communities requires that the towns (water districts) use various chemical additives, including anti-bacterial agents. None of these chemicals are native to the Tahoe area. Water purification and delivery to regional homes and businesses requires electricity to run pumps and purifying equipment. In addition, purified water must be stored in large tanks, generally at higher elevations, so it may flow downhill to where it is used.
The short story is thus: we have plenty of water, but it takes energy and chemicals from sources outside the Tahoe region in order to pump and prepare the water so it's safe for us to drink. Without safe drinking water coming out of the tap, residents would be required to purchase small purification systems or camping units in order to have access to safe water. In addition: people would need to be careful not to get shower or bath water into their mouths or eyes. Tourists would be quite reluctant to visit a region without reliably safe drinking water.
What happens to water when we are done with it? We excrete it as urine in toilets and send the dish water, cooking water and washing water down the drains. To the best of my knowledge, all of this waste water is piped away from Tahoe communities to larger urban areas in Nevada or California. No waste water is recycled, ending up back in the lake. Piping water away requires expensive periodic maintenance of the sewage systems and installation of components that are transported from distant locations. It also takes energy to manage the wastes once they end up at a sewage processing facility.
It is considered unlikely that any Tahoe community would seek to build a local wastewater recycling facility "at the Lake". Even if they did, it's very questionable whether a regional authority like TRPA, or other local communities would support the action.
If the Tahoe region is to become more sustainable in the long run, it will need to make an assessment of how much energy, chemicals and maintenance expense are currently spent on water purification and waste processing. We would need to decide to what extent these services (safe drinking water, safe waste disposal) can be supported. Assuming they are high priorities, we need to make sure that our communities generate the economic revenue to support current water and waste processing. If such support becomes difficult to impossible in the future, we need to be ready to discuss alternative approaches to purifying water and safely recycling human wastes.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Energy Use
In order to begin to establish and maintain a sustainable community in the Lake Tahoe area, we need to have some idea what kinds of energy we use, what we use it for, where we use it, and how this varies throughout the year. Once we have this kind of information we can begin to develop ideas, and eventually plans, to transition to a more sustainable community that has a robust, reliable set of energy supplies.
What are the main sources of energy in use in the Tahoe area today (i.e., the year 2013)? What are they used for? By necessity, only qualitative information can be presented. Getting quantitative information (how much energy used? where does it come from? where is it used? what for? by whom? what times of year? what does it cost?)
What are the main sources of energy in use in the Tahoe area today (i.e., the year 2013)? What are they used for? By necessity, only qualitative information can be presented. Getting quantitative information (how much energy used? where does it come from? where is it used? what for? by whom? what times of year? what does it cost?)
- Electricity provides energy for lighting, powering computers, telephones, TVs, appliances, power tools, etc. These are all reasonable uses of electricity, when electricity is readily available, affordable, and environmentally safe. There is simply no viable alternative for powering light bulbs and consumer electronics. Electricity may also used, primarily in residences, for cooking and space heating. This may have made economic sense when electricity was much less expensive and people were less concerned about burning fossil fuels, especially coal. But today, we need to try to absolutely minimize the use of electricity for cooking and heating. Anyone who replaces an electric stove, kitchen range, or installed electric home heating system should try to switch to gas powered units. Not only will the energy costs go down, but the pollution generated through burning gas will be substantially less that was is generated when creating a comparable amount of electricity. In other words, it's always more efficient to create heat locally than to burn fuels remotely, generate electricity, transport it to a home, and then turn it back into heat.
NV Energy, the Nevada state electricity provider, appears to be moving away from coal plants and more towards the use of natural gas to produce electricity. Electricity in the Las Vegas area is also generated from water power at dams (e.g., Hoover Dam). - Natural gas for home heating and cooking - A small number of Tahoe residents may be lucky enough to live in fully passive homes, heated almost entirely by the sun. An even smaller number may benefit from the occasional use of a solar over or food dryer. But for the vast majority of Tahoe residential and commercial buildings, natural gas provides the source of space heating and cooking (unless electric stoves or range tops are used).
It's become quite common for environmentalists, energy researchers and pretty much anyone else who knows even the tiniest bit about energy supplies to point out that natural gas produces less greenhouse gases (primarily CO2) when burned than an energy-equivalent amount of coal or liquid fuels. While technically true, it ignores the facts that a) natural gas still produces substantial amounts of greenhouse gases, and b) modern gas extraction via fracking allows significant amounts of natural gas, primarily methane, to leak into the atmosphere. Methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. So, for the immediate future and probably at least the next couple decades, Tahoe homes and businesses will need to continue using modest amounts of natural gas for heating and cooking, as no safe and affordable alternative exists right now. But for the longer term, we cannot assume that supplies of natural gas will remain available, especially at prices we are prepared to pay. - Wood fuels have been in use for millennia and continue to this day. Residential use of wood and wood pellets can provide heating and, if the dwellers have a wood powered stove, then cooking power as well. In theory, wood used for heating and cooking is carbon neutral, meaning it does not add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere (which are a prime cause of global climate change). In practice, all wood delivered to residences is transported there by fossil fuel powered vehicles, so there is a modest pollution contribution. The bigger issue is this: Where does this wood come from, i.e., how far from the Tahoe region, and how much can truly be considered locally derived? Also: How sustainably are the forests that provide this wood managed?
Since almost all the lands in the Tahoe area are included in either national or state parks, it's going to be impossible to rely on the region's trees for more than a very small amount of the energy that Tahoe dwellers consume. And to state the obvious: We don't want to do anything absolutely not a matter of survival to damage the natural beauty and biological sustainability of the entire Tahoe Basin. - Solar, wind, geothermal, passive architecture. Passive architecture is the design of buildings so that they receive and capture energy from their surroundings, in order to minimize the need for additional energy inputs. Sometimes passive buildings even capture water, to reduce the need for municipal supplies. Passive architecture is one of the keys for civilized survival in the Tahoe area, and a few houses aspire to being passive today. Designing a passive house requires the use of lots of south facing glass to capture sunlight, plus a means to both store that energy as heat and prevent it from escaping when night time temperatures drop. The problem today is that almost no existing houses and other buildings in the Tahoe area have been designed as passive structures. A problem to be addressed is thus: To what extent can existing buildings, designed as "normal" fossil fuel consuming structures, be re-architected, re-engineered, to use substantially less energy?
Solar residential and commercial energy use first and foremost requires direct access to unblocked sunshine at least during the hours of 9 AM - 3 PM. Solar energy may be used to heat water (relatively inexpensive) and generate electricity (more expensive, but prices are dropping, subsidies may be available, and some new businesses are willing to pay all upfront installation and maintenance costs if the owner agrees to purchase all the electricity). The major problems in the Tahoe area are: Many buildings are at least partially surrounded by large trees, thus do not have good solar access; a number of dwellings are condominiums which would not allow the construction of on-site solar systems; Costs - many home and commercial building owners do not have the cash and/or the incentives to install supplementary solar systems. And this: there are no inexpensive ways to store electricity; retrofitting solar heating often involves substantial building modifications, not the least of which is adding a lot of insulation to the walls and upgrading windows.
The Tahoe area has some highly intermittent wind resources, but much of these are in the upper mountain areas, in forest service lands. Thus producing local wind generated electricity seems unlikely.
Geothermal energy (energy from the earth) may be available, but amounts and costs have not been well studied.
What can we do "right now"? Conserving energy - not consuming any more than the minimum required - is almost always the least expensive approach. This means that owners of residential homes and commercial buildings who want to both save energy and take a small step towards making the Tahoe region more sustainable should begin to:
- Upgrade/replace windows to well insulated double or triple pane ones.
- Seal all cracks around seams and other places cold air may leak in, including fireplace flues
- Make sure the underfloor and attic insulation is substantial. NV Energy can provide guidelines as to minimal levels you should have.
- Replace electric stoves and ranges with gas-powered ones
- Replace all incandescent lights that are one more than an hour per day with compact fluorescent or LED bulbs.
- Use Energy Star appliances
- Keep winter thermostat setting as low as you can tolerate. Programmable thermostats can help.
- If you have a south facing roof with good sunlight exposure, consider adding first solar water heating and second solar electric panels
- A wood burning stove or fireplace insert may make sense, depending on costs of wood and transport distance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)