A realistic, genuine way to reduce oil consumption

[Carol]

On the radio tonight there was a story about a fellow that is involved in carpool groups. He talked about how they are very hard to get going, even with the higher gas prices. "Duh," came to mind. Geographic consrtraints and time constraints....and don't even get me started about carpooling with a smoker. (Not demonizing smokers here, I just don't want to ride share with them).

Some folks at work have talked about carpooling. My counterpart on my shift comes to work from the complete opposite direction that I do. No ridesharing potentail at all. Other folks have talked about buying hybrids.

I have a better solution. It can be used in addition to carpooling and hybrids, and it will save more than carpooling and hybrids put together.

And the winnah is......

Telecommuting.

No geographic concerns, no schedule foul-ups, and no ride sharing with smokers (or folks that complain about smokers). It's even a solution that works if you get stuck at work late.

No fuzzy math here.

I live 48 miles from my work.

48 miles x 2 trips/day = 96 miles/day

Divide that by 27 MPG

3.5 Gallons per day. $11/day.

Occasionally I work from home. SCOOOORE! That's $11 I didn't have to spend. Kewl.

3.5 gallons per day x 5 wordays per week = 17.5 gallons per week.

4 weeks per month (rounded down) = 61 gallons per month

48 weeks per year (accounting for vacation time, sick time, etc.) = 840 gallons per year.

I'm not going to do the math for the cash outlay because that will only depress me.

How about them apples.

If I did my job completely from home, I would save 840 gallons of gasoline per year.

"Yeah but people have to be in the office sometime."

And I agree. Plus I like being around other people.

If I went in to the office 3 days a week instead of 5, I would save 336 gallons of gas per year.

If I went in to the office 2 days a week instead of 5, I would save 500 gallons of gas per year.

That be some serious numbers.

And, unlike a lot of other solutions, it is completely workable with everything we have in place now. As everyone in my group works on an on-call basis, we are already provided with everything we need to work from home. We have telephone software that forwards our work calls and hotline calls to any number we want. We are all given laptop computers, Blackberry PDA-phones, software to connect to our customer sites, and e-mail to talk to one another. Most of us use IM to chat with one another as well. And, technogeeks that we are, we all have high speed internet connections. Our customers never know the difference.

This stuns me. With zero investment, and almost zero changes in work habits, I can save 500 gallons of gas per year.

If other folks in my group do the same...

My 2nd shift counterpart lives a lot closer to work than I do. He could conservatively save 250 gallons of gas per year by working from home 3 days a week.

My third shift counterparts, between the two of them, could probably save 400 gallons of gas per year. The two weekend guys could save 300 gallons of gas per year.

500+250+400+300 = 1450 gallons of gas per year saved, simply by having the only the off-shift folks in my group working from home 3 days a week.

Eye-opening, isn't it?

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Great point, Carol, and an idea whose time has come. Unfortunately, many, if not most, businesses are unwilling to relinquish the control that comes with on-site work. Still, if even 5% more did this - the savings would be spectacular.

 

[elder999]

Great point, Carol, and an idea whose time has come. Unfortunately, many, if not most, businesses are unwilling to relinquish the control that comes with on-site work. Still, if even 5% more did this - the savings would be spectacular.

Not to mention those of us for whom it simply is not an option.

 

[Carol]

Not to mention those of us for whom it simply is not an option.

Not saying it can, or should be a universal solution.

It is, however, a start.

My little high tech startup has 6 people that do not work 9 to 5. Simply having the 6 of us geeks come in to the office 2 days instead of 5 results in a 1450 gallon savings.

Off the top of my head I could probably name 50 high tech companies in my area that have, specifically, a support engineering structure where the engineers work off-hours. The compaines vary in size, but for arguments sake, if all of them had 6 similarly situated off-hours folks...

1450 gallons per year savings x 50 companies x 6 people = 435,000 gallons a year saved.

All for having a half-dozen geeks work in the office 2 days a week, and at home on the VPN 3 days a week, all without affecting how work is done under normal business hours.

Adds up quick.

 

[OUMoose]

I'm all for telecommuting, however there is a downside. Most people who telecommute full-time note a feeling of social isolation. Those little chats over the water cooler can be more important than most think. Then, as Jonathan mentioned, you have the ever-present boss situation. I've worked under someone who said telecommuting was totally out of the question except for emergency situations. Sucked, but that's how the job was. :idunno:

Then there's the implications for lost revenue to the gov't from fewer gas purchases, which will end up coming out of your pocket anyways... and the higher strain on the power companies as consumption ramps up from more people staying home, probably increasing emissions nearly as much as the autos...

Personally, I say stay home and work in your PJ's. *nods*

 

[Carol]

I'm all for telecommuting, however there is a downside. Most people who telecommute full-time note a feeling of social isolation. Those little chats over the water cooler can be more important than most think. Then, as Jonathan mentioned, you have the ever-present boss situation. I've worked under someone who said telecommuting was totally out of the question except for emergency situations. Sucked, but that's how the job was. :idunno:

Then there's the implications for lost revenue to the gov't from fewer gas purchases, which will end up coming out of your pocket anyways... and the higher strain on the power companies as consumption ramps up from more people staying home, probably increasing emissions nearly as much as the autos...

Personally, I say stay home and work in your PJ's. *nods*

Note in the examples I use telecommuting 3 days a week to do the math, not 5 days a week. There are several jobs that could easily be done as a 100% telecommute.

However, there are many, many, many more jobs that could be done with the worker telecommuting 1, 2, or 3 days a week. All open up big savings. Heck, I'm psyched when I have the occasional day to work from home because it saves me $11.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Note in the examples I use telecommuting 3 days a week to do the math, not 5 days a week. There are several jobs that could easily be done as a 100% telecommute.

However, there are many, many, many more jobs that could be done with the worker telecommuting 1, 2, or 3 days a week. All open up big savings. Heck, I'm psyched when I have the occasional day to work from home because it saves me $11.

Good points. I do think we could save quite a bit with an increase in telecommuting, Public Transportation and better (and Wider) roads and highways. Unfortunately, decades of cheap oil removed much of the incentive for this.

 

[Carol]

Good points. I do think we could save quite a bit with an increase in telecommuting, Public Transportation and better (and Wider) roads and highways. Unfortunately, decades of cheap oil removed much of the incentive for this.

That's very true.

What prompted me to post this is...I'm particularly intrigued by solutions that are as close to "drag-and-drop" as possible.

Telecommuting. Energy-saving bulbs in the shape of an incadescent bulb. Light switches with added motion detectors and timing circuits to automatically switch lighting on and off.

Another thing my company does is order lunch.

Every day, the receptionist picks a place to have lunch delivered from 8 or so restaurants in the area. She sends out an e-mail announcing "Today we will be ordering from Tony's Italian Grill", and leaves menus at the front desk. The folks that didn't/don't bring lunch peruse menus. Once they choose their item, they cross-reference the cost on a spreadsheet that shows how much the amount required to cover 8% NH meals tax and 15% tip. The person writes down their order, leaves the appropriate amount of cash, lunch gets ordered, and lunch gets delivered.

I'd guess that a minimum of 2 dozen people order lunch every day. When we work on big projects, we have ordered lunch for many more. Most of the lunch places are 5 miles away. A trip out and back is 10 miles.

So 24 people minimum x 10 miles = 240 miles minimum

If the average city MPG of the cars in our parking lot is 24 MPG, this equates to a 10 gallon savings, per day. 50 gallons per week. 2500 gallons minimum per year.

All because of the way one little start up company in southern New Hampshire orders lunch.

These are the solutions that I find interesting.

Over the past couple of years I've heard several discussions about energy that have included a long lament over why we didn't do more with alternative energy when we faced the first gas crunch in the 70s, and to an extent...that bothers me. Yes, there is value of learning from our mistakes.

There is also value in partaking in less lamenting and more thinking, wondering, and doing.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Telecommuting isn't a bad idea.

I know a math teacher...one of my black belts...who walks fifteen feet to his office every day. He's teaching an on-line math class.

It gives him time to take care of his son while his wife drives to her teaching job.

Not everyone can do it, of course. Me, I started biking in to the martial arts school. I don't do it all the time...but when I can, I can.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Cryozombie]

I wish I could telecommute to work.

"Hello tower? Be a sport and install this antenna on yourself, eh?"

What sucks is that we drive a ginormous van over a large geographic area. It sucks gas, and currently costs nearly 75 bucks a pop to fill.
​

Carol I like your idea, but I am gonna toss a monketwrench in your works...

Doesnt the math assume everyone works 48 miles from their office?

Personally I think everyone needs to buy a motorcycle. On average I get 140 Miles to a tank before I switch to reserve... or about 3 gallons of gas: thats about 46mpg.

 

[Carol]

​

Carol I like your idea, but I am gonna toss a monketwrench in your works...

Doesnt the math assume everyone works 48 miles from their office?

No it doesn't, it the off-hours folks in my group live a lot closer than I do.

My 2nd shift counterpart lives a lot closer to work than I do. He could conservatively save 250 gallons of gas per year by working from home 3 days a week.

My third shift counterparts, between the two of them, could probably save 400 gallons of gas per year. The two weekend guys could save 300 gallons of gas per year.

500+250+400+300 = 1450 gallons of gas per year saved, simply by having the only the off-shift folks in my group working from home 3 days a week.

 

[Kacey]

Telecommuting, for those whose jobs allow it, is a great idea. Yes, there would be reduced income from gasoline tax... there would also be less wear on the transporation infrastructure, which is where much of that tax money goes.

The point about the hidden costs of working from home is valid, however - for example, I have a programmable thermostat (one of those "drag and drop" solutions you were referring to) which turns the heat down shortly before I leave for work, and turns it on shortly before I get home (or shortly after, depending on the traffic). When I stay home, the heat stays on at the higher level - which does not affect the cost of heating the school where I teach at all. I use more power in other ways as well - lights are on, the radio or TV is running, I use kitchen appliances that would otherwise be idle, the outside doors are opened more often, for both my own access and to let the dog in and out... all of these are "hidden" costs which raise the cost of working at home, while not reducing the cost of running the workplace. Also, I am more likely to run errands on stay-home days - whether to the doctor's office (if I'm that sick) or other errands that are hard to run during the workday; it can be very hard to get out of a school in the middle of the day. Do these additional costs outweigh the cost of gas and wear-and-tear on my car and the roads it travels? Probably not - but they do need to be considered.

In today's increasingly connected world, working from home is much more feasible than it's been since the start of the industrial revolution, and it is an option that should be pursued for its obvious benefits - but the hidden costs also need to be considered carefully when touting the benefits.

 

[Bigshadow]

I like telecommuting. I have done it from time to time. I live about 25 miles from the office, although it takes me 45 minutes to drive it. However, my boss is one of those from the old school and he likes to be able to pop his head in and see the employee (although he never does). I bet I go a month without ever talking to my boss (the owner), I never hear from him, even though he walks by my office several times a day. So, with this in mind I could easily work full time from home.

Although, I wouldn't telecommute full time. I would like to work a 2-3 split. 2 at the office (Tues and Thurs) and 3 at home. If fuel prices continue to climb, I am going to discuss it with him.

 

[Carol]

Telecommuting, for those whose jobs allow it, is a great idea. Yes, there would be reduced income from gasoline tax... there would also be less wear on the transporation infrastructure, which is where much of that tax money goes.

The point about the hidden costs of working from home is valid, however - for example, I have a programmable thermostat (one of those "drag and drop" solutions you were referring to) which turns the heat down shortly before I leave for work, and turns it on shortly before I get home (or shortly after, depending on the traffic). When I stay home, the heat stays on at the higher level - which does not affect the cost of heating the school where I teach at all. I use more power in other ways as well - lights are on, the radio or TV is running, I use kitchen appliances that would otherwise be idle, the outside doors are opened more often, for both my own access and to let the dog in and out... all of these are "hidden" costs which raise the cost of working at home, while not reducing the cost of running the workplace. Also, I am more likely to run errands on stay-home days - whether to the doctor's office (if I'm that sick) or other errands that are hard to run during the workday; it can be very hard to get out of a school in the middle of the day. Do these additional costs outweigh the cost of gas and wear-and-tear on my car and the roads it travels? Probably not - but they do need to be considered.

In today's increasingly connected world, working from home is much more feasible than it's been since the start of the industrial revolution, and it is an option that should be pursued for its obvious benefits - but the hidden costs also need to be considered carefully when touting the benefits.

There is still a net savings if you stay at home. You are going to eat lunch no matter where you are. Assuming a hot meal...if you are at work, you may have a restaurant's kitchen use power to cook their lunch. If you bring your lunch, you may bring a TV dinner that took energy to process and package, then you use the microwave at work to heat. If you cook lunch, you use the power in your kitchen.

Having less people in the office does result in a net power savings...short term/near term, fewer people means less heat load and power usage in the building. Longer term, flexible work environments (hoteleing, etc.) can mean a business can grow while still maintaining the same amount of square footage in the office.

That is an interesting point about running errands, however, one is likely to open the door and run errands anyway whether one is working from home at the time or not. When I work from home it is very very difficult for me to run errands (due to the nature of the work I do.) I tend to stay put.

Plus, different housing designs account for different amounts of loss by opening the door. I live in an apartment building so when I open the door, I am opening the door in to my hallway. My apartment door is closed and locked before I open the door to the building. Condos, houses with breezeways, many architectural designs reduce/minimize the loss of opening a door to the outside.

Other factors...for jobs with a dress code...working from home saves on pollution and energy from dry cleaning, less nylons are used (a petroleum product).

 

[Kacey]

There is still a net savings if you stay at home. You are going to eat lunch no matter where you are. Assuming a hot meal...if you are at work, you may have a restaurant's kitchen use power to cook their lunch. If you bring your lunch, you may bring a TV dinner that took energy to process and package, then you use the microwave at work to heat. If you cook lunch, you use the power in your kitchen.

Actually, this equates to no savings - the power is being used somewhere - it may cost your employer less because it you are using your home power, but you are still using power somewhere. I eat the same things for lunch at home and work, and the energy cost in either place is the same; I rarely go out to eat from work (if a student wants homework help over lunch, my lunch is eaten in my room, while helping - and that happens often), but if I did, then again... someone, somewhere, is using power to cook my lunch. I see no savings or loss here - just an even exchange.

Having less people in the office does result in a net power savings...short term/near term, fewer people means less heat load and power usage in the building. Longer term, flexible work environments (hoteleing, etc.) can mean a business can grow while still maintaining the same amount of square footage in the office.

I'm not disputing that it is cheaper, overall, to work from home - however, in many buildings, it is not possible to reduce the heating/cooling costs if a percentage of the staff don't show up. The last time I worked in an office building (admittedly a long time ago - but the same system is in place in my school) the heat/AC is on all the time, whether the room is occupied or not.

Likewise, the rationale behind flourescent lighting is that it is very energy efficient to use - and having the lights off in one room doesn't make much difference. In cubicle situations, the ceiling lights are for the whole room, and only desk lamps are used within the cubicle - so the cost saving there would be minimal. If the infrastructure is changed such that smaller buildings are in use in the future, then the energy savings would be greater - but given the current infrastructure, having fewer people in the building will not generally affect the energy used to heat and cool the building.

That is an interesting point about running errands, however, one is likely to open the door and run errands anyway whether one is working from home at the time or not. When I work from home it is very very difficult for me to run errands (due to the nature of the work I do.) I tend to stay put.

I tend to stay put at work - schools have this silly idea that the teacher needs to be in the room with the kids :wink:, so running errands, like going out to lunch, tends to be difficult. It's on days that when I don't go to the school that I run my errands; it's just easier not to worry about being late for a class.

Plus, different housing designs account for different amounts of loss by opening the door. I live in an apartment building so when I open the door, I am opening the door in to my hallway. My apartment door is closed and locked before I open the door to the building. Condos, houses with breezeways, many architectural designs reduce/minimize the loss of opening a door to the outside.

I live in a house, no breezeway... and, in fact, I am in the process of getting bids to replace the windows because they are old and not very energy efficient. Also, because of the layout of my home, I can't enter from the garage (no door from the garage to the house - more secure, but less convenient)... so I lose heat/cooling whenever I open a door.

Other factors...for jobs with a dress code...working from home saves on pollution and energy from dry cleaning, less nylons are used (a petroleum product).

Well, I guess that depends on your dress code... being that I spend a lot of teaching time kneeling next to desks, and work in a building where the flooring is linoleum over cement, and the dress code is, well, pretty minimal - I wear blue jeans and nice shirts, with sneakers, to work - the same thing I wear at home, except that at home I wear t-shirts instead of button-down shirts - so that's not an issue for me at all.

I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that telecommuting has its advantages - but it's not the only, or even the primary, solution to our dependence on petroleum products. Instead, we need to change major factors in our lifestyles. I just got back from a tour of Great Britain, where gas is just under one pound a liter - that's about $7.00-8.00 a gallon (nearly 4 liters in a gallon, and about US$1.80 per British pound). People in Great Britain walk a lot, and take the underground or buses. As bad as gas prices in the US are compared to what they've been - our gas is relatively cheap, compared to other countries; it's only as the price rises relative to what it's been in the past that people sit up and take notice. In the short term, yes, we need to reduce petroleum use - in the long term, we need to find alternatives that use replaceable fuels - solar, water, wind, ethanol, nuclear, etc. That's going to require a paradigm shift that this country (and many others) has been avoiding for quite some time.

 

[fireman00]

And the winnah is......

Telecommuting.

Eye-opening, isn't it?

DING, DING, DING, DING...... I'm with you on this one! My job is officially in a town 38 miles north of one of our satelight buildings (76 miles round trip). One day whilst driving past our satelight building to our main campus it struck me that it was rediculous to have to drive the extra miles. I asked my boss and he replied - sure why not? I go one day a week to our corp headquarters - extrapolate that out - 3 bucks per gallon of gas * 2 gallons per day * 4 days a week and I'm saving 24 dollars a week, 120 dollars per month, 1,440 dollars per year not to mention the savings I'm realizing in maintenant costs.

However, I've found that I am a little out of the loop when it comes to the latest news/ happenings/ events that could impact me. But with instant messaging, email and calling the other folks in my group 2 or 3 times a day I'm on top of things.

Now I just need to find a way to convince them that working from home in a t-shirt and sweats with the laptop and cell phone fired up is acceptable ....

 

[Phoenix44]

I'm still wondering why I don't see PV cells on every roof in the neighborhood...

 

[OUMoose]

I'm still wondering why I don't see PV cells on every roof in the neighborhood...

Probably because Photovoltaic cells aren't efficent enough yet to justify widespread consumer usage, and the initial costs are too great to stretch out over a 10-20 year ROI. They're getting cheaper and more efficent, so I'm sure you might see a wider adoption soon (read: within the decade).

 

[Phoenix44]

Well, I went solar a few months ago. Our rooftop array cost less than a new car, and we expect the panels to pay for themselves in 5-6 years. Biggest problem for us was actually getting the cells, which took about 6 mos...we were told by the solar contractor that the U.S. demand is huge, but most of the cells are being shipped to Europe and Japan.

 

[Cryozombie]

Well, I went solar a few months ago. Our rooftop array cost less than a new car, and we expect the panels to pay for themselves in 5-6 years.

Id love to go solar, and reduce my dependance on the system. Of course Id love a car newer than a 1972 as well, but hey we can all dream eh?