Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Forget the Gas Pump -- Heating Bills May Be the Killer This Winter

By Simran Sethi, AlterNet. Posted October 8, 2008.


Rising oil and natural gas prices may be devastating this winter. But there is something we can do about it.
Advertisement

According to the United Kingdom's National Housing Federation, one in four residents are facing "fuel poverty," spending more than 10 percent of their household income on fuel bills. By the end of 2009, 5.7 million UK households will be spending at least 10 percent of their income on energy bills. That's a 100 percent increase since 2005.

Closer to home, the United States Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration estimates each American household will pay, on average, $1,182 in heating costs this winter -- a 20 percent increase from last winter and a 65 percent increase from the winter of 2003/04.

Yet, a closer look reveals that this pain isn't shared equally. Costs are a reflection of a host of factors including geography, consumption levels, and the quality of energy used.

Northeasterners who heat with oil will see the steepest increase. They will pay, on average, over 37 percent more for heat than they did last winter (over $1,500 dollars). The price is a reflection of the nearly 200 percent increase in costs of home heating oil since the winter of 2003/04.

Meanwhile, Westerners who heat with gas will see the benefits of stepped-up natural gas production reflected in the lowest regional costs in the country. Don't plan a parade. They'll still be hit with an approximate 24 percent increase from last winter because the cost of natural gas has climbed 61 percent in the last five years.

The difference between the fuel prices for New Englanders and Midwesterners is just one example of consumers facing higher prices because of the decisions made by local governments and utility providers.

While many of us have found ways to cut back on our fossil fuel use-using efficient appliances, insulating drafty roofs, weather-stripping windows, or biking to work -- the price of heating oil and gasoline is largely outside of our control. But this energy crisis is creating an opportunity for us consumers to take back our power.

Higher prices have spawned increased concern and awareness about our energy sources. We have more information than every before. On the precipice of an election, the time is right to demand our governments and utility companies explore renewable energy alternatives that will ultimately create more jobs, sustained revenue, and a healthier environment.

Our demands mustn't stop there. In addition to considering what we use and how we use it, we must consider issues of race and class. The impacts of rising temperatures, fossil fuels prices, and heating and food costs disproportionately impact the most vulnerable among us.

Because prices are increasing across the board, low-income families will continue to spend greater amounts on the necessities that already represent a large proportion of their budgets than other socio-economic groups.

In addition, our most polluting energy sources and industries usually end up in communities of color and low-income communities, burdening these populations with poor air, compromised water quality, and greater health-risks. Controlling for all other factors, race is the primary determinant of this environmental injustice yet people of color are twice as likely to be uninsured than Caucasians.

Add this public health cost to the rising costs of food, gas, housing, and the economic failings from Wall Street to Main Street. What we see isn't just the potential for fuel poverty, but over-arching poverty.

There is no magic bullet that will solve these challenges, but forward-thinking economists and environmentalists recognize that the solutions to both planetary and monetary woes lie within the problem, and are intricately tied together. As the rising cost of fossil fuels handicap all those who rely on them, a new focus on renewable energy will not only ease our addiction, it could create a cutting-edge domestic energy industry, along with and thousands of new jobs, many for those in lower-income communities.

"Green-collar jobs" provide a viable alternative to both economic and environmental woes, while at the same time involving populations that have been largely overlooked in past economic and energy policy decisions.

In 2006, renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies generated 8.5 million new jobs, nearly $970 billion in revenue, and more than $100 billion in industry profits. The new United Nations Report on the Environment predicts the global market for environmental products and services will double by 2020.

Pitting the economy against the environment creates a false opposition. It is the justification used to pillage our natural resources and keep the United States shackled to big oil companies and rapidly dwindling resources.

Green jobs demonstrate what's good for the economy can and will be good for communities. Bailouts notwithstanding, we have no time to wait. The green collar economy is an essential step to ensuring the people who are already suffering the most egregious impacts of the economic downturn will not be further disempowered.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: green jobs, oil prices, energy prices

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
'GREEN HOUSES'
Posted by: zodiac12 on Oct 8, 2008 4:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Tony Blair became PM over here in the mid 90's I, as a designer/architect sent him a comprehensive letter extolling the virtues of 'self-sufficient' new build houses, commercial premises et al. We've had the technology available for a considerable time. That was eleven years ago and we are now told we are in a very serious fuel shortage position-not for powering vehicles- but heating,cooking, lighting. I never even had a reply to my letter. I bet Blair would have replied if I had suggested getting rid of Sadam Hussein.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

indeed, but...
Posted by: heckchuckman on Oct 8, 2008 8:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are indeed many advances being made in the alternatives to oil and gas heating, which is very encouraging. The missing component is public knowledge and adoption.

I recently talked about this with my mother, who is a typical middle-class citizen living in central Pennsylvania. She told me that she would need to buy over $4000 worth of oil to heat her small two bedroom house this winter, so she was looking into alternatives. The only alternative she could find was a natural gas fireplace. When I mentioned greener alternatives, she wasn't too thrilled because the technologies aren't accepted by the mainstream.

How do we push these technologies into the mainstream given the fact that we don't have the luxury of time for things to trickle down? What is the marketing equivalent of "hybrid" for home energy? We need our marketing minds to figure this out fast.

Great article!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: indeed, but... Posted by: MIST
If people would honor and respect frugality and conservation
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 8, 2008 9:47 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
instead of PERSECUTING them, GOD WOULD NOT BE PUNISHING THE WESTERN WORLD WITH RISING HEATING COSTS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RELIGION IS CAUSED BY MENTAL ILLNESS Posted by: AsteroidMiner
hydrogen on demand
Posted by: sunspot on Oct 8, 2008 3:14 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although hydrogen on demand (water4gas etc) is difficult for modern cars, because of the need for overriding the oxygen sensor, hydrogen on demand is very easy for diesel trucks, tractors, and home heating systems. My husband is working with an inventor on just such a unit. They hope to be in production this winter with a maintenance-free dry cell unit for supplementing fuel to the oil burner. Check in from time to time at their site, www.camelgas.com. They're hoping to increase efficiency of the oil by 50%, as they're doing now with farm equipment in current field trials. It will help people who already have an oil burner & can't afford solar, geothermal, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Using hydrogen to heat a house is very foolish.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 8, 2008 6:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It takes a lot of energy to make hydrogen since hydrogen is not
found as free hydrogen in the earth. You have to put more
energy in, usually as electricity, than you are going to get back.
Heating a house with hydrogen thus makes no sense whatever.

Storing energy as hydrogen: Great idea, sort of. It has been
around a long time, like a century or more. It never caught on.
Why? Germany had hydrogen pipelines a long time ago.
Hydrogen works in spark ignition engines and turbine engines, if
the engines are big compared to gasoline or natural gas engines of
the same horsepower. Hydrogen is ideal for fuel cells.

People have not invested in hydrogen as an energy storage
medium because hydrogen is a difficult gas to deal with.
Hydrogen gas leaks out of any and all containers, no matter what
they are made out of. Why?: Because the hydrogen atom,
minus the electron, is just a proton, 1000 times smaller than an
atom. Any solid material is just a sponge, not a wall, as far as
hydrogen is concerned. The electron is easily lost to the atoms of
the wall, leaving just the proton. Even a whole hydrogen atom is
the smallest atom and easily squeezes through solid walls.
Hydrogen will stay bottled up at low pressure to a certain degree,
but the best way to make it stay put is to leave it in the form of
water. Solid materials can be used as filters for hydrogen and
helium. If you make a hydrogen storage facility, you have to
expect to loose a lot of your hydrogen. Energy stored as
hydrogen gas has to be used very soon after the hydrogen is
made.

Pressureized hydrogen storage requires very high pressure, and
the tank is still much too big. The hydrogen fuel tank for a
pickup would use up the whole cargo capacity of the pickup.

Liquid hydrogen storage requires a lot of energy to cool the
hydrogen because hydrogen liquifies at a very low temperature,
near absolute zero.

Hydrogen can be stored as sorbed into intermetallic compounds.
Intermetallic compounds form a super-sponge for hydrogen gas.
It was proposed that cars use hydrogen gas tanks containing
intermetallic compounds. A typical car would require a 300
pound gas tank. Research was done on this subject in the 1970s.
Nobody ever commercialized it. Would it work for electric utility
energy storage? Are there enough of the metals required
available? Clearly the storage facility would be large and
expensive. I am going to let other people invest their money.

Hydrogen also causes its container to become brittle and break.
Hydrogen embrittlement is a big problem for the steel pipelines
that transport hydrogen.

A hydrogen flame is invisible to the human eye. That makes it
dangerous, so you have to mix it with a gas that makes a visible
flame. Otherwise, people will accidentally walk into a hydrogen
fire.

Hydrogen that has leaked out of something escapes from Planet
Earth. The earth does not have strong enough gravity to hold
hydrogen. Only giant planets have free hydrogen in their
atmospheres.

Of course, NASA can afford to use hydrogen for fuel cells and
hydrazine for rocket thrusters for orientation in space. NASA
economics is a completely different subject.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What if you're wrong?? Posted by: sunspot
Why wind and solar are not already popular for home heating
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 8, 2008 6:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth
Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about nuclear power. Gwyneth Cravens
is a former anti-nuclear activist.

Page 211: In 2005, the production cost of electricity from:

nuclear power on average cost 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour 1.00 times nuclear's
price

from coal-fired plants 2.21 cents per kilowatt-hour 1.28 times nuclear's price

from natural gas 7.5 cents per kilowatt-hour 4.36 times nuclear's price

from oil 8.09 cents per kilowatt-hour 4.7 times nuclear's price

Wind fits in here.

solar in a sunny place 22 to 40 cents per kilowatt-hour 12.79 to 23.26 times
nuclear's price

American nuclear power reactors operated in 2005 around the clock
at about 90 percent capacity

geothermal plants operated at 75 percent capacity

coal-fired plants operated at about 73 percent capacity

hydroelectric plants at 29 percent capacity

natural gas from 16 to 38 percent capacity

wind at 27 percent capacity

solar at 19 percent capacity

[Batteries not included but required for wind and solar. Why did wind and solar
operate so far below capacity? Simple: Wind power never works when the
wind isn't blowing. Solar only works at maximum during the noon hour. Is the
sun shining the most when you are cold? Of course not. It is winter because
the days are shorter. Is the wind blowing the most when you are the coldest? I
don't know, but chances are 3 to 1 that it is not.]

Wind and solar look like bad bets for keeping you warm in the winter unless you
live in a very unusual place. You may object that you didn't want electricity, you
wanted heat. In the 1970s, many people worked on storing solar heat for
heating. It worked, but it hasn't been widely adopted. Another source of heat is
geothermal from 20 to 40 feet below your house. This is using heat stored by
the ground. It also works, but you need a heat pump between your ground heat
and your house to make your house warm enough in most places.

Page 13 has a chart of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production.
Nuclear power produces less greenhouse gas [CO2] than any other source,
including coal, natural gas, hydro, solar and wind. Building wind turbines and
towers also involve industrial processes such as concrete and steel making.

Nuclear power plants produce a total of 30 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour, the
lowest.

Wind turbines produce a total of 58 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Solar power produces between 100 and 280 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Hydro power produces 240 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Natural gas produces between 439 and 688 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Coal plants produce the most, between 966 and 1306 grams of CO2 per kilowatt
hour, the highest.

Remember the total is the sum of direct emissions from burning fuel and indirect
emissions from the life cycle, which means the industrial processes required to
build it. Again, nuclear comes in the lowest. Nuclear would produce even less
CO2 per kilowatt hour if the safety were lowered to the same level as other
sources of electricity. Switching from coal to nuclear is a 97% reduction in
electricity's 40% of our CO2 output.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Re: Green Collar Jobs
Posted by: bobtr900 on Oct 9, 2008 1:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America will not have enough green collar jobs to make a real difference until this nation is really suffering, deeply suffering. When the religious Repub voters and the business Repub voters are really suffering, then and only then, will America get sufficient support for and sufficient numbers of green collar jobs and green collar industries. Until then, the oil companies, the coal companies, the Bush family and the Republikkkan party of fear and hate mongers will rule the roost, and will continue to stifle all other businesses and all other people in our country.

It is amazing to hear how much China is studying and researching green collar solutions. Some entire towns are involved in their research.

Some day in the not so distant future China will be selling 'green' solutions to America if we do not throw the strangling yoke of the oil companies, the Bush-Cheney families, their religions and their totally profits driven Republican party off our backs. Even as we sink further into the abyss of their craven and hate driven religio-business hypocrisy.

And on a side note, these people can easily perpetrate WWIII as they were the ones along with a few other like minded, who perpetrated WWII. And they did so by convincing their populace, their polity, that it was alright to kill, to kill others who deigned to think differently. And we can all see who well that turned out, with some 60 million dead and no one knows how many billions of people and families suffered and are still suffering the after effects of that war.

It was also amazing to hear how much the Catholic Church, my religion, was involved in and controlling Poland's politics. Polish politicians felt it might take 30 years to extricate the Church from their politics and it's control over the country. Their belief that it might take thirty years was due to the fact that it took thirty years to rid themselves of other repressive regimes such as Communism. So in their thinking, repression is repression, no matter who perpetrates it. Which is exactly what we are seeing here in America.

Also interestingly enough, the Pope was recently in France and after that was in some other European countries trying to push his agenda, even while we here in America are suffering from his involvement in our politics. And in Poland which is suffering from his involvement in their politics. He seemed to get very little support from either the French or the other Europeans for his agenda. It is unlikely that he will get any such support since the Catholic Church's involvement in WWII is still in the forefront of their minds.

On a side note, the papacy may not survive, if the Catholic Church is to survive. The myth that one man can run an institution of nearly a billion people and in a world of over six billion people may be at an end. And the myth that a theocracy can control an entire world may also be at an end. And that includes all theocracies.

Mean while back at the ranch and back to the main thread of this post.
The right wingers who control this nation will not stop their support for the small number of the very rich. When the American voter suffers enough real pain and agony then we will have some kind of revolution, at least a revolution in thought. Until we can throw out the rich, either the business rich or the religious rich, we will never be free of their form of tyranny. The middle class is the real economic engine that runs this country and our economy; not the religious or the very few rich.

The landed gentry still rule. The few and the very powerful still rule, as they once did in England. The feudal system is still very much with us. It is alive and doing very well, right here in America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In Oklahoma, some of the people who live in the Rural Areas...are...
Posted by: One American Lady on Oct 24, 2008 4:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Already *without propane*, & some can't afford to buy more for 2 to 3 more weeks.
Propane is selling for about 150 gallon / $370.
That much propane will last about 5 to 6 weeks or so, depending on the size of the house, that is to be heated.
Liheap Program, "isn't enough" to assist the Low-Income Families...cause It's Never Over $122 / $140, a "One Time Distribution" per year.
And Salvation Army... thru the Community Action is "$75"....
Add that to the other amount & even that total of $197...WILL "NOT BUY, 1OO GALLONS OF PROPANE" much less the 150 gallons, which the Companies say: We Will Not Deliver, "less than 150 Gallons", in any One Delivery.
(Looks like a lot of electric heaters & electric blankets, will be needed).
One American Lady

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]