I did get around to posting photos I took on Sunday, October 29, of the second home I looked at on the Tucson Innovative Home Tour - check out this Flickr set of the Passive Solar Home.

It was very impressive to see this place - it’s been designed from the ground up to take advantage of passive heating and cooling strategies, and, in the words of the architect, to last for HUNDREDS of years. This is an architectural long view that reminds me of Stewart Brand’s ‘Long Now’ Foundation. If this kind of development became the standard, think of the long-term savings, not only in terms of the cost of replacing construction materials, but also in terms of the decreased environmental impact of not dumping worn-out construction materials.

Another impressive fact about this home is the water use per capita. In Tucson, the average water use per day per capita is 120 gallons. This house consumes 40 gallons per day per capita - one-third of the average! How is this accomplished? The landscape does not use municipal water but takes advantage of roof runoff and cistern / greywater harvesting. Inside, the single greatest use of water is for toilets - we flush nearly 30% of our treated water right down the toilet. The owner mitigates this with the use of Carroma toilets - a low-flow commode that has been used for over 20 years in Australia, and which apparently does not cost significantly more than a regular toilet. I will be checking into these.

I wrote yesterday that the Solar Institute was hosting the Tucson Innovative Home Tour this weekend, and I made it to Brad Lancaster’s house on the tour. Brad is truly a rock star of sustainable development. I first read a profile of him in the Downtown Tucsonan, and subsequently purchased his book Rainwater Harvesting for Drylands. I can’t help but think that if every Tucsonan did some of rainwater harvesting as described in that book, we might be able to put ourselves on a path to sustainable desert dwelling, despite the throngs who move here on a monthly basis. I would like to see studies that forecast the effects on our water table and sustainability if these techniques were adopted on a large scale, i.e. for EVERY new development in Tucson.

Anyway, I have posted some photos that I took of the home with some descriptions here. What he has done on his 1/8 acre lot in downtown Tucson is simply amazing, and inspiring.

I am going to try to hit another home or two on the tour (between my two gigs for the day). If I make it, I will post more photos.

Yes, I know it’s been a looong time since I have posted - the sign of a dead or dying blog. I won’t make any excuses, although you can read plenty of them here. I particularly like the post by the guy who hasn’t blogged b/c he’s trying to become a full time blogger. I definitely can’t use that excuse…
After redesigning the site and deciding to focus on sustainable solutions with a Tucson focus, I let the blog lapse and even seriously considered just pulling the plug. But I was recently inspired by a friend’s site redesign, and decided to try again. I am still passionate about this topic to the point that I want to document the things that are happening here in Tucson w/r/t/ long-term, sustainable solutions - Tucson is a locus for green design, construction, water harvesting, solar power solutions, etc., and people need to make the stewardship of our natural resources a concern. I will try to focus on those kinds of issues and solutions in this blog.

So, what’s first? The Solar Institute’s Tucson Innovative Home Tour is happening today and tomorrow, and it looks like some really amazing homes are on the list. In particular, Brad Lancaster’s house is open to ticketbuyers, and in between all of my weekend gigs I intend to get out to see it. I purchased Brad’s book, “Rainwater Harvesting for Drylands, v. 1″, which inspired me to start digging basins and berms in my own backyard to direct the flow of rainwater to my fruit trees. He really does represent a model for a kind of living that we will see increasingly necessary in the 21st century - with solar power, he is completely off the Tucson Electric Power grid, 25% of his food comes from his own 1/8 acre property in the middle of the city, and his total monthly utility bills are around $20 per month (according to the recent Tucson Weekly article). Amazing.

As an afficianado of modern architecture, I am in love with the Big Dig House. From the standpoint of environmentally-sound construction and sustainability, the house is even cooler: It uses over 600,000 pounds of material recycled from Boston’s Big Dig. Even if that massive project seems to be having its troubles, it just might have some attractive side effects in the housing arena, if this house is any indication.

Also, check out the Metropolitan Magazine article on the house.

Forgive my blogging delinquency - I am back in Tucson from extended travels through the Midwest. Trying to get caught up on the latest news, but will return to green-themed blogging in short order here. In the meantime, I just read about the new laws put into place in the Netherlands and Portugal designed to reward consumers who buy hybrid vehicles and make it more difficult to purchase gas guzzlers. Check it out.

Thanks, Martin, for the link to the Wikipedia article on Brown’s Gas - which is essentially what Dennis Klein seems to be making over at Hydrogen Technologies. My suspicions about the efficiency of this fuel source seemed to be confirmed when I did some further checking. I found the following passage by Tom Napier at Brown’s Gas Information (emphasis is mine):

Suppose we wanted to run an internal combustion engine on this gas. How much energy would we get out? If we burn Brown’s Gas we get pure water vapor. Burning 18 grams releases 242000 Joules of heat energy or 229.5 btu. (Allowing the vapor to condense would yield an additional 44500 joules, 42.4 btu, but in any conventional engine this output would only appear as waste heat and will be ignored.)
Thus if we drove an engine with 168 grams of gas per hour we would be putting 2.26 million joules per hour of heat energy into it. Operating at a plausible combustion temperature the thermal efficiency might be as high as 50% so we would get out 1.13 million joules per hour or 314 joules per second, that is 314 watts.
The bottom line is that we have put in about a kilowatt of electrical energy to get out under a third as much in mechanical energy. Considering that the efficiency of an electric motor would be over 85% there is no justification at all for using a Brown’s Gas generator and an internal combustion engine. An electric motor would do better at less cost and with far greater reliability.

That’s what I thought - input energy is greater than output energy - not a viable means of vehicle propulsion at this point.

My uncle sent me this Fox news story about an entrepreneur who set up his car to drive for 100 miles using only 4 ounces of water. Check it out on YouTube here.

If this is legit, it’s truly revolutionary. However, I’m skeptical. Doesn’t the “unique electrolysis” process he mentions require energy input, and how can the system be so efficient as to allow a mere 4 ounces of water to generate the power needed to propel a vehicle that far? I would appreciate comments from any scientists about how feasible this is.

Also, if this IS for real, why is this not in the front page of EVERY media outlet in this country? Power this efficient, economical, and ubiquitous would be a genuine paradigm shift - is this story just in the early stages of the internet ‘hype cycle’ or a hoax?

Perhaps the most disturbing part of the clip is toward the end, when they state that they are “in negotiations with one U.S. automaker and the U.S. government.” The news anchor later states that his company is developing a Hummer that can run on both water and regular gas. Questions here:

1) If this really works, why bother making water/petrol hybrids given the relative cost of water vs. petroleum-based fuel?

2) What’s to stop U.S. automakers from buying the company outright and squelching this technology to protect the economic interests of the auto manufacturers and oil companies?

3) Why pursue military applications first? Profit can’t be the only reason, since the civilian market for this technology would dwarf the number of Hummers in Iraq.

IF this technology is genuine (and I am not sure that it is), then it marks the beginning of a true alt-fuel revolution. This guy stands to make mountains of cash with a technology that really benefits humanity - why let the military get the first crack at it?

I just found out about OptOutPrescreen.com, a site which allows you to opt out of receiving pre-approved credit card offers and insurance offers. It was pretty simple - just fill out the form online and the three major credit reporting agencies will exclude your name on lists provided to all those companies. I hope it works - I am sick of receiving 10 pieces of mail that I have to throw away for every one REAL piece of snail mail (although those are usually bills!). A small but effective way to reduce your waste, which can’t hurt.

Is this website for real? Here is the answer they provide on their FAQs.

When I first found out about TerraPass, I became intrigued by the idea of investing in carbon-free energy production projects to offset the carbon emissions spewed from my vehicle’s tailpipe. I used the online calculator on the TerraPass home page to figure out how many pounds of greenhouse gases my non-hybrid Honda emits annually (11,000!), and bought a TerraPass. For 50 bucks, I was then able to drive without guilt, which sure beat making another 5 years of car payments to trade up to a Prius!

In the May 2006 issue of Wired, TerraPass is mentioned along with Carbon Fund and Climate Care as examples of carbon offset programs. I think purchasing carbon offsets makes sense as part of a ‘grab bag’ of sustainable strategies we can use to minimize our impact on our environment. I like that these non-profits are using the market system to effect positive change, investing in companies that exemplify this pro-tech, ‘eco-capitalist’ ethic. Eco-yuppies everywhere can put their money where their sentiments lie.

So, I used the Carbon Fund calculator to figure out my estimated total carbon impact, and donated slightly more than the suggested amount to Carbon Fund. (It’s even tax-deductible!) Between TerraPass and Carbon Fund, I estimate that I am more than offsetting my personal greenhouse emissions. I am not just carbon neutral, but carbon negative.

That’s kinda cool.