coach, I'm into the same philosophy of "doing it yourself," I think, as you are. Eighteen years ago I moved back to the country (where I grew up) and gradually have implemented many self-sufficiency changes.

Among them 1) a "waterstove," (widely available, as there are many makes and models) where the stove is outside (no "messy with sally jesse" -- or in this case, wood debris all over the floor). It is satisfying to know that the wood I gather and cut supplies both hot water and heat for my home 24/7, 365 days a year, without bringing bugs, dirt or mees inside. Since installation, this stove has cut my power bills to less than 1/2 of the previous monthly average (over a year). (It also gives me a good workout . . . ). Much of the wood I get is already dead and on the ground, and I only have to gather it from a small fraction of my total land area that I own.

2) several small solar electric systems with some battery backup. This is has been very gratifying, although my systems are not yet large enough to get off the grid yet. (See grid usage in KWH below)

3) the usual stuff, CF lighting (and now some LED), a Sunfrost fridge, and a gradual refinement of usage (such as not using the stereo with my television unless I'm watching a good movie, when it matters to me and I want nice full, tactile sound.)

4) several water catchment systems, one going to my former pool (now a fish pond).

5) a hybrid Civic car.

6) an electric ATV for going to the woods and gathering fuel for the fire.

All these changes have brought my power bill down from an average of 110$ a month to around $20-30 a month (although power per kilowatt costs have risen at least 20% over the past few years). Last year, actual kilowatt hours usage varied from a low of 80 KWH to 160 KWH. My usage continues to decline a little bit more each year. (In 1993 the "low" month of usage was 600 KWH (in April), and the high that year was in December, with 4600 KWH usage(!!!) (I hate feeling cold and always ran my heat pump a lot during the winter)! This was fairly typical up until 1999 when I purchased my wood stove.)

I have to disagree a little about not being grid-tied. While not a panacea, it would help a lot to attract a lot more installers to the state, and make it a lot easier for the many who live in urban areas to go solar, and thus reduce their coal, nuclear, gas usage. We must think of those who are old and feeble, or those who are simply technologically challenged (even in small things.), and who don't live in Amish-like communities, but are stuck in the cities, or forgotten in the country. {I refer to such people as elderly widows, effeminate "ar-tee-sts," blockhead republicans etc. etc. :-) }

It also shows those who have grid-tie just how EASY, FUN, and yes- responsible! -- it is to reduce (or eliminate) their usage, and in the process help the system by feeding the grid when they're away (being good to yourself and others at the same time -- the perfect blend of selfishness and altruism, where Albert Schweitzer and Ayn Rand are as-if married, and in matrimonial bliss).

Southern Company, the owner of Alabama Power, hates grid-tie so much that in order to be connected to the grid, they support the current law that requires that the grid-tie customer pay $5000.00 a year in insurance costs to cover any "damage" that a grid-tie system might cause them -- despite the fact that current grid-tie technology has proven to be extremely reliable and safe. This policy of theirs is obviously just a pretext to prevent individuals from taking more responsibility for their own energy usage, and to relegate alternative energy to just "hippies" (read: "libtards" like myself) and yes, the Amish. They don't want alternative energy to go mainstream because they would no longer be able to claim that they are indispensable (or "precious") to the whole energy-supply equation.

Have a good one, coach! I loved your post!

Over the years I've gotten weary of political protests and the lack of real solutions offered by them. True, Gore is somewhat hypocritical, but the fundamental problems are not being addressed by him or most others who comment on the problems of climate change and other environmental abuses that are together carrying us to tipping points, the other sides of which could be cataclysmic. I was happy to see Bill McKibben featured in the Planet series. But, I think the central thesis in his book Deep Economy was not emphasized to a sufficient degree. He proposed fundamental changes in our economy and way of life. That means taking personal and community responsibility, not to protest and write letters, but to reconnect with community, local sustainable agriculture and (my editorializing here) getting off the "grid" in many different ways. All the wind, solar and geothermal energy in the world will be missing the point if it is merely feeding into the grid.

I live in Amish country and see how they have structured a meaningful, satisfying and self sufficient lifestyle. There are a number of problems that I have with their lifestyle, but they understand what it means at an organic level to live locally and well. As an aside, I recently bought a chimney for my woodstove from an Amish sheet metal fabricator at about half the price of commercially available chimneys, and twice the quality. It is well made and promises to last a lot longer than the commercial alternatives. It represents an Amish value that I think is frequently misunderstood by we "English". They are not anti techonolgy, they are against being dependent on the larger society. Many of them have engines (usually Honda) that power their workshops and sawmills. Their farm machinery is mechanical with the power supplied by horses. The fundamental difference between us and them is that they don't depend on electricity supplied from the grid, don't have automobiles and don't have telephones, although they are totally willing to use all these conveniences when they are owned by others. Their overwhelming ethic is self-sufficiency.

Where I depart from the Amish is in my belief in technology. We need more technological and scientific development to approximate what the Amish have, but with the advantages of technological development.

coach, I find myself feeling somewhat the same way, though perhaps for slightly different reasons. It isn't that I don't like THE PLANET, it is an interesting doc, and well produced, directed etc.

What I am weary of is the lack of actual coordination between what is obviously a problem -- planetary distress -- and grassroots action by those who are forever talking about it. Example: we've seen and heard a lot from Link TV about this issue, but has Link TV made the decision to go solar itself, in order to reduce its carbon and other pollutants?

This issue came up about a year ago when a news story (probably AP) reported that Al Gore's mansion was not equipped with any solar, wind or other alternative power sources. His response was that he had investments in alternative energy. Is that really an answer? Maybe, to a degree. But as a CNN story reports from December of 2007 (see link below), the improvements he's made since then have only decreased his energy usage (so far) by 11%. While I'm glad he has started making concrete changes, the real question is, why is he (and so many others) so late, and have done so little?

On the TV show that Ed Begley has on HGTV (don't recall the name), there was an episode with Jay Leno where the two toured Leno's auto museum, and one of the cars was a hybrid from the early part of the century that got quite an impressive mpg (though, I confess, I don't remember exactly what it was). Leno stated that this was illustrative of how "even then" there were people that wanted to increase efficiency.

Likewise, if one has read Aldous Huxley's novel from 1939, AFTER MANY A SUMMER DIES THE SWAN, one can read about electricity created from solar-thermal devices, based on the research of the Smithsonian director, Dr. Charles Greely Abbot. (see 2nd link below)

Despite the many aspirations through the decades, however, the reception for being self-sufficient and less harmful to the environment has been lukewarm at best. While now there is more interest and publicity than there has ever been in energy efficiency and alternative sources of power production (especially in Europe!), the actual individual desire amongst the population seems about the same as it's always been (in America). As evidence of this, drive through almost any fairly well-off (or ritzy, for that matter) neighborhood in any American city (so that money isn't the factor), and you'll see very few, if any, solar water heaters, photovoltaics, wind turbines etc. on the houses. (And this is true even in states where net-metering laws are in place, where government rebates are in effect, and building codes are friendly.)

So if money is plentiful, and if rebates and building codes aren't standing in the way (in many areas), what is the problem? That question isn't being asked, or at least asked enough. (P. S. if LinkTV decides to hold a specific fund-raiser for this purpose, remember to use a thermometer to show how much money has come in. It would be quite appropriate, considering the Greenhouse effect. Likewise the rising mercury would also indicate mercury contamination rising from coal emissions.).

link to CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/13/gore.home.ap/index.html
link to Aldous Huxley on solar power: http://www.simpleandclear.com/simple.html

While I find the Planet series interesting, I find it curiously lacking in actual science. You're getting the cart ahead of the horse. The global warming denialists continue to make points about the science that are clearly misleading to those acquainted with the science, but seem convincing to those who are illiterate in or don't care about the science. Seems to me the greatest service you can offer would be to illustrate what the science actually shows, not assume that everyone knows it.

Thankyou LinkTV for the documentary series,'The Planet'.It's brilliant,with incredible photography.
It reminds me of what my grandparents always believed.That we MUST take care of the Planet ,because WE ARE a walking,scaled down model of the planet.We can NOT survive without taking care of all it's elements in a balanced way,in he same way that our bodies cannot sustain life unless we nurure,feed and respect them.
The planet CAN SURVIVE without US,in whatever mode it assumes or mutates to.
BUT, WE CANNOT survive without our mentor,THE PLANET!
Every person is merely a minute 'crumb' belong to the same 'loaf',THE PLANET.
Our elemental chemistry,biology,physics,mirrors that of the planet.
AND,we are the only species that abuses and rapes our planets resources disrespectfully and disproportionally.This blows my mind because the planet is our only compatible HOST.It's,so far,our only rest stop on the Universal highway.
Everything we see,touch,feel in our ecologogy/environment IS ALL WE HAVE,so far in the whole UNIVERSE!!!
This glorious blue spinning marble!
And we continue to love it BUT ABUSE it,as if we can just toss it aside,and find another 'marble'.LOL! Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!
We are all merely an offshoot of the planet,like a branch on a tree. Without sustaining,frugally,our roots,the tree dies,WE DIE!
This series lays it all out on the table of common-sense and rationality.
Thanks LINKTV!