Did you figure in:

- 50% savings on heating and cooling bill for using high-efficiency windows.

- An additional approximate 25% savings on heating and cooling for upgraded insulation and caulking.

- 75% savings on lighting bill by switching to CFL.

- 50%+ savings on all residential energy usage by designing your next house with efficiency in mind.

- 25%-50% savings on fuel for personal use by choosing a more fuel-efficient vehicle.

- 50% (or more) savings on amounts spent on disposable paper products by using less when needed and using reusable cloth materials when appropriate.

- 25% savings on hot water heating cost by using low pressure showerheads and aerators.

- 25% savings on hot water heating cost by using high-efficiency heater; or 80%-100% savings on hot water heating cost by using solar water heating.

- 10%-20% savings on heating and cooling by using a timer thermostat and raising the temperature 2* in the summer and lowering it by 2* in the winter.

- Energy savings by cleaning replacing filters as needed.

- 10% savings on cooling cost by placing your A/C units in the shade (or planting a bush next to them).

- 40% savings on heating and cooling by buying high-efficiency furnaces and air conditioners.

- 33% savings on vehicle fuel for not driving aggressively.

- 1%-25% savings on vehicle fuel for emptying out your trunk.

- 10% savings on vehicle fuel for changing oil and filters regularly.

- 10%-30% savings on laundry energy usage for choosing a more efficient washer/dryer, and avoiding small loads.

- Savings on property taxes for reduced garbage disposal and reduced water usage.

- Economic benefits to the entire economy by recycling, thereby supporting the multi-billion-dollar recycling industry and reducing materials cost for users of metals/plastics/paper, resulting in savings to the consumer.

That's just off the top of my head.  The list is, quite literally, endless.  Going "green" can be a TREMENDOUS money saver.

I ask you again, OS:  Are waste and excess conservative family values?

Warning:  Long post ahead:

pepprdog wrote: First, recycling is great.....LED lighting is the future for a major energy savings in the home.

Agreed.  LED > CFL.  But LED technology isn't quite there yet.  Close, but not quite.  In a decade I expect that CFLs will be obsolete, but I could be wrong.

OK...how many of these have you taken to the bank for home improvement loans?

HE Loans?  For a light bulb, or to plant a bush over my A/C units?

But seriously - here's the point:  I am not suggesting that everybody run out and buy new furnaces and water heaters now.  What I AM suggesting is that when it is time to buy new applicances, you consider the efficiency.

I am looking at windows right now.  Very expensive, no matter what I do.  But going from cheap windows to high-efficiency windows?  About 10%-15% cost increase.  That will pay for itself in NO time.  Not even counting the $500 tax credit I get for installing them.  And, of course, the high-quality windows come with a life-time guarantee - the cheap ones do not.

I am also looking at some new appliances, and you can bet that they will be EnergyStar compliant.  This doesn't cost any more than other appliances.  So, given that I am buying appliances anyway, the high-efficiency is free.

My A/C units are ancient.  I am not running to the store to buy new ones.  But you can bet that when they finally die, I will spend the extra few bucks for a quality product.

Nobody is suggesting that we run out and throw out our stuff now.  The suggestion is to replace incrementally with better stuff.  I am replacing bulbs in my home with CFL bulbs now.  A few were replaced "pre-emptively", but mostly I am simply replacing them as the old bulbs break.

We make thousands of decisions a year that impact our personal efficiency - why not make just a few of those more efficient?

You planning to build your own "high efficiency" home soon?

Yes.  Probably won't happen at this time, though, do to other constraints.  Sigh.  But some day...

Unless you have a really good income you will be building a very small home that has very little air exchange holding most of the "used air" inside.....yuk....

I think you misunderstand what makes an "efficient" home.  It's mostly about orientation and careful placement of windows to maximize lighting and HVAC savings.  The rest is just insulation.

Have you changed your driving habits AND bought a new high mileage car?

I drive like a pig.  Very inefficiently.  This will be the last thing I give up.  And my car?  Not terribly efficient.  But again - I am not running out to replace it, but I AM making a short list of vehicles that will replace it when it is time, and they are all more efficient than what I have now.  Nobody is telling you to sell your car - I am suggesting that you consider mileage NEXT TIME you buy a car.

I don't know where you got all those figures but most of them are bogus & way over rated compared to the reality and a couple are "out there".

I recognize that some of them are probably fluffed up a bit for commercial and/or political reasons - but they are all my best recollection of information I have been exposed to over the years.  Much of this is easily available online for you to confirm.

But they are based in science - the weight-to-mileage savings for emptying your trunk is pretty straight-forward.  CFL savings versus incandescent is easy to measure, as is appliance energy usage.  These numbers may seem too good to be true, but I think you will be shocked at how accurate most of them are if you look it up.

AND, of course, even if they are all overstated by 100%, the point remains - you can save money and save the planet at the same time.  We can quibble over just how much we will save, or we can get to the saving.

It DOES matter what the costs are..... but I'd bet there aren't very many of you in a position to really understand that from experience. Unless you actually own a home and have to pay all the expenses to operate that home and run a family you have no idea what you're talking about.

I agree that most forumers probably don't know.  As it turns out, I do.

Owning a home is difficult enough for most people but almost doubling the cost of the home loan (and insurance costs) to save energy isn't an easy task and it's beyond most people without a major increase of the Family income.

And again - I am not suggesting that you double anything.  I am not suggesting that you go buy a new fridge right now, but I AM suggesting that next time you buy a refrigerator, you look for the EnergyStar logo on the door.  That probably won't cost you anything, and if it does, it certainly won't be "double" anything.

After the tax credit, my energy-efficient windows will cost just a little more than regular crappy windows, and I will earn that back in a couple of years.  But again, I am not running out to replace windows for the heck of it - I am replacing windows because it is time.  I am simply considering the efficiency factor.

You can wipe your butt with a wash cloth....I'm not.....heh, heh.....

And neither will I - but I will use cloth napkins instead of paper napkins, at least sometimes, and I will use a rag to clean up a spill instead of half a roll of paper towels.  Saves money and the world.

It's not rocket science.  I was recently on a visit to Europe.  My hosts had gone out of their way to purchase some paper towels for "the Americans", because they never used them themselves.  If those silly Europeans can manage to live without paper towels, can't we at least cut back just a little?

You don't have to turn your life upside down.  Just make little changes when the time is right.  You will SAVE money, not break the bank.

Reaver wrote: Global warming wont effect us for another 150+ years

Unless, of course, you happen to live on the Maldive islands, which could be under water well before that.  And unless you like drinking clean water.  And so forth.

But, as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, global warming isn't really the point.  Sustainability is the point.  Waste is the point.

I can't believe you are going to make me do this...

Darur wrote: High efficiency windows tend to be quite a bit more expensive then normal windows, not to mention the costs of shipping them in special when they aren't carried in your area.  Plus if you break them the cost is even worse.

Nope.  They cost a little more, and come with life-time warranties.  Granted Hawaii might be a special case, but for most of us the savings are quite drastic.

Replacing all the windows in a home with these would cost thousands for just the windows alone, not counting labor and extra work to make the new windows fit.

This is true for all windows.  Upgrading to efficient windows is a marginal cost.

- 75% savings on lighting bill by switching to CFL. While they do last substantially longer then your average incandescent bulb, they cost a fair bit more.  Plus, as a recent thread demonstrated, if you break one you could spend thousands cleaning up toxins.  Their mercury content, as tallen pointed out, will have to be dealt with as well.  Considering most people wont go out of their way to throw away these bulbs properly, thats more and more mercury being released into the environment.

As also mentioned in that thread, fluorescent lights have been in use for decades.  The savings associated with fluorescent lights are well documented.  You are speculating.

- 50%+ savings on all residential energy usage by designing your next house with efficiency in mind. That would be everything you mentioned above

Not at all.  It's a matter of architecture.

- 25%-50% savings on fuel for personal use by choosing a more fuel-efficient vehicle. Hybrids and similar vehicles cost a lot more and in some cases are hard to get to.  On Maui I believe there is something like a two year waiting list for hybrids.

Who said hybrid?  I simply meant to skip the engine upgrade you don't need.  Get the Camry instead of the Taurus.  Cars come in many forms, and I am merely suggesting that you consider fuel efficiency as a factor when buying.

- 50% (or more) savings on amounts spent on disposable paper products by using less when needed and using reusable cloth materials when appropriate. Thats misleading.  Granted you use much less landfill space by using reusable cloth equivalents, you end up using much more water.  For example, cloth diapers or disposable diapers.  With disposable, you have to keep buying them and they do fill up the land fills.  On the flip side, with cloth diapers, you need to wash them.  Thats more water being used, leaving less clean water.  Plus, bleach and detergent gets mixed into the water, polluting.  Its a lesser-of-two evils situation.

Overstated.  If you use a rag to clean a spill instead of a bunch of paper towels, that is pure savings.  Diapers are a special case, and even there the savings are massive - do you have any idea how much paper diapers cost?  Napkins save versus paper napkins, and using less tp is pure savings.

- 25% savings on hot water heating cost by using high-efficiency heater; or 80%-100% savings on hot water heating cost by using solar water heating. Provided your house and area support it.  In Maui it would be ideal,...  Plus, not every area gets plenty of sunlight.  Plus, I happen to know many people with solar water heating, they all have electric back-ups because even here its not that reliable.

You would be surprised how well solar heating does in different parts of the world.  You don't have to be in the Mojave to use solar heating.  And most people have gas backup for the solar heat - they aren't really intended to be standalone systems.  Hence the range I gave for savings.

- Economic benefits to the entire economy by recycling, thereby supporting the multi-billion-dollar recycling industry and reducing materials cost for users of metals/plastics/paper, resulting in savings to the consumer. I've agreed with what you said up till here, but recycling is not such a pretty industry.  Read http://mayfirst.org/node/59 - here and http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Recycling/Problem-With-Plastics5jun03.htm - here . Another good read about http://www.ecologycenter.org/ptf/misconceptions.html - recycling . (Sorry, working on other projects, not enough time to dig up better links)  Point is, much of our waste

I'll acknowledge that recycling is a complicated business - I was obviously in simplification mode.  But the general principle stands - resusing is generally better/more efficient than disposing, when all costs are considered.  Disposing is fundamentally wasteful, and waste is the essence of inefficiency. http://mayfirst.org/node/59 -

To suggest making changes like that with an older home is just plain silly.

You couldn't be more wrong.  The opposite is true - older homes have more to gain by each of these improvements.

My favorite green/money saving proposal is ethanol by far, because no one considers its costs.  - Ethanol has reduced efficiency, not only more costs but it results in more emissions. - Because its anhydrous, it absorbs water.  Many local boaters have suffered from the recent 10% addition of ethanol to all fuel because it absorbs water from the extra moisture.  These boaters have to go out and pay extra to have their engines pumped out to get rid of excess water (on the cover of out paper one unfortunate fellow had almost two liters of water). - Ethanol is more corrosive then gasoline.  Its suspected that it played a role in a local boater's death for eating through his fiberglass gas tank. - Much of ethanol in America is produced from corn.  With more corn for ethanol, thats less going to food and other uses, meaning higher costs for corn for everyone.  Higher corn costs mean higher feed costs for livestock, which in turn means more expensive meat.

I am no fan of ethanol, but you are wrong to think that those issues have not been considered.  These are not novel concerns.  But you are wrong about the CO2 emissions.  What makes ethanol more CO2 efficient is the growing process - the corn/sugar/whatever consumer CO2 during the growing process, which partially offsets the CO2 released during burning.

I believe this thread was about the cost of going green as relating to using "newer friendly" fuels in OS's diesel truck.
OS the liberals have hijacked your thread.

I won't nitpick further at Darur's post, but I need to clarify three things:

- Windows.  Window replacement is a major business in this country.  People DO replace all, or most, of their windows on a regular basis - as in most people will do it once.  Old (pre-1980 or so) have wooden window frames that rot.  Replacing the windows is not an option, or something that is done for kicks and giggles, but pure necessity, like putting on a new roof.  I am not, repeat NOT, suggesting that anybody go out and replace all their windows for the heck of it.  What I am suggesting is that when your house needs windows, which it will if it is old, that instead of spending $10,000 on crappy windows you spend $11,500 for good windows.  That extra $11,500 will also get you $500 back from the gubment and could cut your HVAC costs in half versus the cheap windows.  And, unlike the cheap windows, they will come with a life-time guarantee.  It would be economically foolish not to get the nice windows.

- Efficient new home design.  This isn't about extra insulation and so forth (although that would presumably also be included), but about window and wall placement and orientation.  The purpose is to maximize natural light for electricity savings while also getting maximum direct sunlight in the winter for heat savings and minimal direct light in the summer for cooling savings.  It requires a knowledgable builder/architect, but it isn't rocket science.  Total cost versus regular construction?  Zero dollars.  It isn't more or less, just different.  And it comes with massive reduction in your energy bill.

- Improving older homes.  What I mean by saying that older homes have more to gain is simply that they are less efficient currently (generally speaking).  Replacing 50-year-old windows will gain you more than replacing 25-year-old windows, because the gains in window technology is better.  Replacing my 30-year-old AC units (when they finally die) will save me more than replacing my 15-year-old-furnace did.

Oh, and OS - electric car technology has a way to go yet, but you clearly aren't keeping up.  Visit http://www.teslamotors.com - www.teslamotors.com for a nifty little vehicle.  A little expensive, but that will change.

But I still don't understand the resistance to savings and efficiency?  I am not asking anybody to make a significant change in their life.  I am simply pointing out ways that you can save your wallet and the environment at the same time.  Not all methods will work for all people, but there are thousands of ways to save.

Are you really going to pay EXTRA for being inefficient just to spite the librals?

I have to take Clark's side on this one-as much as I detest the global warming paranoia, going efficient is just smart.

Some of the things being suggested are a tad impractical, but on the whole keeping your house running energy efficient is in your favor more than anyone elses. My parents broke down and replaced their windows this year-didn't cost nearly as much as anticipated, and you can really feel the difference.

As for electric cars-engineering is going a long way.

I think the point of the original post was lost.  OS simply stated that going green for his particular TRUCK seemed a little out of whack.  Of course then, because OS posted this thought, the entire thread turned in to an OS bashfest about how he was personally destroying the world because he is a pinko-liberal hating Nazi Conservative.  I'm pretty sure politics weren't even mentioned in the original post, nor were efficient windows, cloth napkins, global warming, Anwar drilling, or electric cars.

I think we're all up to speed now.

Incorrect, FlimFlam. 

In a vacuum you are correct, but this thread is merely the latest installment of OS' many part series: "many reasons why I don't want to do anything that could possibly benefit the environment".

The responses in this thread are not so much responding to OS' initial post, but continuing an ongoing discussion on the subject.  It has all been quite topical, really.

Well gee, slap my mouth.  I wasn't aware this was so "topical".  To me it looked like someone hijacked the original post direction to talk about green measures that makes any disagreement make you look like a nutcase.

I'll be sure to pay closer attention in the future. 

Sorry to resurrect, but came across this goofy little article on "green houses":  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18422485/ - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18422485/

This article estimates 2% higher cost up front, and 50% savings on total energy cost forever, for the particular type of house they are talking about.  Specifics will vary, of course.

Using those numbers, an average house that might otherwise cost $200,000 to build would now cost $204,000.  On a 30-year fixed mortgage at 6.5% with 20% down, that's a monthly mortgage payment (P&I only) of $1,011.31 for the "regular" house, and $1,031.54 for the "green" house.  That's $20.23 more per month in mortgage payment, and much of that will be tax deductible.  You would also have to pay 800 more up front, although you would get most of that back in a tax credit.

For that extra $20/month, you get a 50% savings in energy costs.  That will vary depending on your local rates, but we can safely assume at least $70 saved each month, probably much more for most people.

So - how much do you have to hate the librals NOT to build a house like that?

CarbineKid wrote: If you want to make the cost of fuel cheaper just drill off the US coast, and in Alaska.

......your kidding right?? at our rate of fuel consumption we would go throught the supply in alaska in less than 3 months. not worth it if you ask me

oldsoldier wrote: Lets try this again. My point is that as my bussiness is required to use a fuel that was "designed" to be more enviornment freindly, the cost/volumn/effectiveness of the fuel negates any real positive inviornmental impact. I need to use upwards of 15-20% more of the ULSD depending on blend/bio/cetane rating, to cover the same distances, so I burn more, over a longer period, putting more exhaust fumes and particulates into the air. What is the benifit?

Nobody disputes that most current biofuels are less potent than petrochemical fuels, which results in reduced power/efficiency - usually in the 30% range.

Nor does anybody dispute that biofuels are, at least at the moment, more expensive than petrofuels.  Clearly going to biodiesel is not economically preferable for most businesses at this time.  Clearly.

Some "green" alternatives are cost-effective, some are not.  At the moment, biofuels are not.

As to the benefits - There are two.

First, going to biofuels will allow the US to supply a vastly greater share of its own fuel.  The US is the greatest agricultural power in the world.  Instead of being forced by realpolitik to chum up to despicable people in the Middle East, we could make our own fuel.

Second, CO2 offsets.  Even though burning biodiesel ends up releasing about the same amount of CO2 as petrodiesel, this is largely (70%, give or take, depending on the fuel source) offset by the CO2 consumed by the agricultural process of growing the fuel in the first place.  When you burn petrochemicals, you are releasing CO2 that has been nicely sequestered for millions of years.  When you burn biochemicals, you are mostly recycling last year's CO2.

Now, biofuels are still a work in progress.  The conversion process can be energy intensive, and good arguments are made that for many biofuels the whole process is energy negative, which is bad.  But regardless of current growing pains, there is clearly a future for biofuels as part of the mix.

As for the electric/hybrids, I find more of the problem in certian cities the egos of the users of the vehicles not the vehicles themselves.

I concur.  The smug factor of many hybrid drivers is quite annoying.  This is particularly true since there are many perfectly fine high-mileage vehicles that are not hybrid, but somehow hybrid technology has been deemed to be the most PC.  Very annoying.

Sorry to keep bumping this, but I have to report my own embarassment at my gullibility.  I blithely accepted the rather odd claim that breaking a CFL bulb could result in major EPA-style cleanup requirements, costing "thousands of dollars".

Shame on me for not checking - This is of course a massive urban legend:  http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp - http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp

So - install CFLs.  Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.