Heating costs are rising, and the response in home building is increased efficiency of insulation. OUr houses are tighter than ever, keeping out cold air in the winter and keeping in cool air in summer. Look at the diagram on page 299. By some calculations, indoor air can be 90 times more polluted than indoor air. There is a relationship here. By increasing heating and cooling efficiency, we are taking away the air infiltration that blows out pollution. What is the relationship? What do you think? Where is the middle ground?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The relationship between energy efficiency and indoor air quality is the fact that many of the insulative products and processes involve chemicals that have toxic VOC (vapors) and other toxic properties. I will gladly accept these risks rather than paying higher utility bills and being uncomfortable. The exsisting asbestos and lead paint are stable unless you attempt removal. The safest solution is to apply sealers over these. The EPA website has three recommendations for improving indoor air quality:1.Source control 2.Improved ventilation, 3. Air cleaners. Adjusting burners on gas cooking appliances, air make up systems to provide combustion oxygen for furnaces, using window air conditioners with the vent open, getting a free radon test kit and sealing the source. Many new homes are sealed so tightly that mold will grow on walls and in crawl spaes due to the lack of fresh air circulation, a fresh air make-up system will cure this . Or we could live in tee-pees and keep the top vent open always have a fire burning.
ReplyDeleteRef. Choose your risk. page 347,
In the future I would prefer more Nuclear generating stations. They are much safer and less poluting than coal or oil fired units.
Just north of us, the Endicott power plant in Litchfield has been burning coal since its startup in the 1980's. Off to our east on Lake Erie the Enrico Fermi Nuclear generator has been send electricity down the lines since 1957. They had a melt-down in 1966 and no radioactive material was released.
Wow, Alan I didn't know about the nuclear plant. That is a very good point. Maybe it is because they put more safety measures in place at a nuclear plant than in a coal burning plant that could be that a coal burning plant kills us slowly and unnoticeably where as a nuclear plant leaking or exploding kills us almost immediately and is very noticeable.
ReplyDeleteI believe that with more and more technology we could eventually live in a bubble with filtered air and a same temperature all the time. I believe that the goverment has been trying to do this for along time especially now with trips to other planets.
ReplyDeleteTina, go on-line and check out bioshere 2. This was an experiment concducted at the Unv. of Arizona. One of the main problems was the depletion of oxygen and growing food. This is all connected with future space travel and colonization.
ReplyDeleteTina, when you go online, look at this web page www.palisadespowerplant.com it explains the nuclear station at Covert, Michigan.
ReplyDeleteThe French are big believers in using nueclear. Why doesn't Obama and his select group of advisors endorse this technology? Take note that water is a big factor in locating these facilities. They need to keep cool.
Al, I havent researched nuclear stations or coal burning stations(maybe I'll get a hair up my butt and do so lol) anyway you said that nuclear power plants need to be by a water source. There are usually alot of people near water sources. Does the water get polluted after cooling the plant down? If so how will this effect the environment inwhich it is being released? The water will obviously be hot or do they cool it before release? These would be very important factors to consider befor we decide to go all nuclear. Maybe a mixture of the two (coal and Nuclear or even solar and wind) is the answer.
ReplyDeleteThe relationship between energy efficiency and indoor air quality is that they are efficient not sufficient. They‘re better but they are not good enough. I think we need to use more natural products in our house; products that don’t release hazardous chemicals into the air in the first place (smoke outside!!) Air purifiers might be an answer to some of the pollutants blowing around the house, they are man made also, and so who knows if they’ll kill you in the long run too. Maybe the air filters will filter out the stuff that they themselves produce? How well do they really work? How much energy are they going to need to run? Will running an air filter and saran wrapping our houses really save us more money than just letting the breeze blow through? Or maybe it would be cheaper (saving time and money!!) by not buying an air purifier or sealants in the first place. Should we just accept the risks to save a few dollars?
ReplyDeleteTina, I think you're right about eventually being able to live in a bubble. I hope to God that we never have to. The world is a beautiful place and I hope my children get to enjoy all the beauty of it and not be stuck in a climate controled "bubble".
ReplyDelete