![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
What indeed?
Jan. 22nd, 2005 05:59 pmGot to talking at the work about stuff I've been following and stewing over for years. Felt good to have more than just an opinion for a talking. After all the factoids and notions came a'spewing, I got the question: "If you know so much, what have you done with it?" Aka, why are you a bus driver?
I had a ready answer, and some time to reflect. New house needing working -- lots of work. In the last four years, a new roof, some new wiring, a new breaker box, new siding -- more to do on that one, much more -- new shed (getting close to finishing . . .). Yep. Busy.
But I really should find time for the stuff that, I think, could save me money later. I'm talking schemes of cost-effective solar water heat, rainwater reclamation and use, dryer vent heat reclamation and re-use, soda machine construction (easy one, that, just need to plumb a filter and water line), et freaking cetera.
Why not just buy something ready-made for the task? Good question.
MOst of the items for sale in the energy/resource conscious community assume a big no-no, that people so inclined to pursue such endeavours are doing so for altrustic motives only. They wish, as I do, to reduce energy consumption that leads to carbon build-up, watershed depletion. The "Total" altruism loses me. Why should I pay more for a device that saves a bit? This rewards those that simply consume. No, my solutions must be not only good, but good for the wallet.
Example: a guy in Portland (sorry, couldn't find the web page) builds an intricate system of pipes, cisterns and filters and reduces his household use of city water to cooking and drinking only. Everything else -- washing, showering, flushing, the lawn -- used captured rainwater. However, his system requires the filters to be replaced once a year, at a cost high enough to offset most, if not all of his water bill savings. I'm actually not sure if he saves money.
No good for me. I require something that will pay for itself in short order, a couple years at most. Therefore, lots of design before implimentation. And it is tricky to do.
A solution could be to charge more for sewer, water, electric. That would encourage folks like me to go ahead with plan A, rather than constantly tweak the numbers downward.
Something on the radio, in fact, got me blood a'boiling. Speaking of Oregon, they are there researching a GPS technology that would track where cars travel, and charge road use taxes accordingly. The more you drive, the more you pay.
What's wrong with that, you may wonder?
Everything.
Currently, we fund roads with gas taxes. The more you use, the more you pay. Those with bigger cars use more gas, and therefore pay more for the added damage bigger cars do to roadbeds. It is a rational system.
When the Bigger and the smaller pay the same amount for miles traveled, however, where is the incentive to buy smaller? Why get a highly fuel efficient car when you end up paying extra in purchase price and the same in road taxes as a converted freight train on rubber? Taxes should encourage conservation.
(Oh, and don't get me started with the civil liberty violation of tracking the actual travel of a private vehicle. I refuse to own any car that could tattle on my whereabouts. Ever.)
So, I should get to putting the idea on paper, if only to get a baseline for cost v. benefit. I really should.
Sigh.
I had a ready answer, and some time to reflect. New house needing working -- lots of work. In the last four years, a new roof, some new wiring, a new breaker box, new siding -- more to do on that one, much more -- new shed (getting close to finishing . . .). Yep. Busy.
But I really should find time for the stuff that, I think, could save me money later. I'm talking schemes of cost-effective solar water heat, rainwater reclamation and use, dryer vent heat reclamation and re-use, soda machine construction (easy one, that, just need to plumb a filter and water line), et freaking cetera.
Why not just buy something ready-made for the task? Good question.
MOst of the items for sale in the energy/resource conscious community assume a big no-no, that people so inclined to pursue such endeavours are doing so for altrustic motives only. They wish, as I do, to reduce energy consumption that leads to carbon build-up, watershed depletion. The "Total" altruism loses me. Why should I pay more for a device that saves a bit? This rewards those that simply consume. No, my solutions must be not only good, but good for the wallet.
Example: a guy in Portland (sorry, couldn't find the web page) builds an intricate system of pipes, cisterns and filters and reduces his household use of city water to cooking and drinking only. Everything else -- washing, showering, flushing, the lawn -- used captured rainwater. However, his system requires the filters to be replaced once a year, at a cost high enough to offset most, if not all of his water bill savings. I'm actually not sure if he saves money.
No good for me. I require something that will pay for itself in short order, a couple years at most. Therefore, lots of design before implimentation. And it is tricky to do.
A solution could be to charge more for sewer, water, electric. That would encourage folks like me to go ahead with plan A, rather than constantly tweak the numbers downward.
Something on the radio, in fact, got me blood a'boiling. Speaking of Oregon, they are there researching a GPS technology that would track where cars travel, and charge road use taxes accordingly. The more you drive, the more you pay.
What's wrong with that, you may wonder?
Everything.
Currently, we fund roads with gas taxes. The more you use, the more you pay. Those with bigger cars use more gas, and therefore pay more for the added damage bigger cars do to roadbeds. It is a rational system.
When the Bigger and the smaller pay the same amount for miles traveled, however, where is the incentive to buy smaller? Why get a highly fuel efficient car when you end up paying extra in purchase price and the same in road taxes as a converted freight train on rubber? Taxes should encourage conservation.
(Oh, and don't get me started with the civil liberty violation of tracking the actual travel of a private vehicle. I refuse to own any car that could tattle on my whereabouts. Ever.)
So, I should get to putting the idea on paper, if only to get a baseline for cost v. benefit. I really should.
Sigh.