Effects of El Nino

       El Nino occurs approximately 30 times per century, but the intensity and effects can vary. Scientists have become more capable of predicting the outcome of El Nino, and the results are often severe.

       Years in which El Nino is particularly strong have a more harmful impact on ecosystems and economies. In Peru, for example, flooding and mudslides destroy homes, upset transportation, and spread disease rapidly.

       One of the most noticeable effects is in the fishing industry. Peru’s market depends on the cold, nutrient-filled water to sustain the fish population. Scientists have also noticed a decrease in several bird populations during stronger El Nino years because of the decreasing food source. Of course, hurricanes increase in intensity, destroying habitats and forcing people out of their homes.

       Peru was where El Nino was first noticed and where it received its name, but it’s impact stretches all over the globe. Even in the United States, certain areas receive extremely high rainfall depending on intensity and serious tornados or hurricanes.

       El Nino can cause extreme drought as well as extreme flooding. This is  because of the movement of warm water from the west Pacific to the east. The rain moves with the warmed water which brings rainfall to typically dry areas and drought to others. With the rising populations and many nations already struggling against poverty and the lack of clean water sources, this is a huge environmental concern. Lack of fresh water spreads disease, may spark uncontrollable fires, increase air pollution, and affect food supply. It has its own economical impacts too. For example, authorities claim the Panama Canal may be reach dangerously low water levels during severe droughts.

      Apart from destruction on land, the rising temperature of the water can kill the algae that protect coral reefs, causing the coral to die off as well. Again, the economy is impacted because tourism levels can drop significantly.

       Some scientists have presented theories of a link between El Nino and global warming. They reason that increased global temperatures increase evaporation from the land, add even more moisture to the air, and intensify El Nino’s impact.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/el.nino/fire.rain/index2.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071220133426.htm

http://www.pacificislandtravel.com/nature_gallery/elnino.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elnino/reach/across.html

       A hydrogen fuel cell car seems to be a step in the right direction in the battle against greenhouse gases. What sounds most appealing is that there is no by-product of CO2 when a hydrogen fuel cell creates energy. The cell releases mainly H2O.

However-

1.  Actually producing the hydrogen CAN be a source of CO2 emissions. First of all, hydrogen is an “energy carrier.” It’s produced from other energy sources. Hydrogen is not found in nature by itself, and processes such as electrolysis or to separate the hydrogen do release CO2 into the air. SMR (steam methane reformation) uses high temperatures and pressure to break hydrocarbon into hydrogen and carbon oxides which are then emitted as greenhouse gases.

2.  Transportation of hydrogen poses another problem. Hydrogen isn’t as compatible as oil or gas for our pipelines. Creating new methods of transportation means more costs and more fuel used for the production.

3.  As mentioned in the class blog, the United States does not the overall infrastructure to support these hydrogen fuel cars. Switching companies over would be a huge project, demanding lots of energy and expenses. (It may cause many to lose their jobs). Besides, not all companies can be expected to make the change. Do we have the resources to support hydrogen and gasoline systems?

4. Production of the actual cars requires separate own costs and energy/fuel demands.

5.  A fuel cell’s performance, similar to a battery’s, decreases over time and needs to be replaced. Continually producing the materials for the vehicle which eventually leads to more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

6.  Processes to obtain hydrogen are not completely efficient. So, more energy is necessary to create the hydrogen than what we’re getting out of it. Again, the efficiency is not 100% when the fuel cell powers the car motor. The buildup of inefficiencies and their effect on our resources has a chain effect to CO2 emissions.

7. Aside from CO2, hydrogen fuel cells release H2O which is a main greenhouse gas. The amount is not hugely significant, but it is a lot higher than the water produced from burning gasoline. 

Sources: 

http://fuelcellsworks.com/JustthebasicsonHydrogen.html 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2840191.stm

http://whyfiles.org/shorties/174fuel_cell/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4199381.html

Response to CFL Debate

      When reading from a prestigious paper, such as the The Chicago Tribune, one might expect logical arguments looked at from both sides of an issue. While the excerpt we are discussing is actually a commentary from other sources, the contributor is from The Wall Street Journal. However, his views on the matter disregard several important points.

Now, I’m sure that Phillips and GE and Sylvania all want to make the world a better place and so on. But if they can do so while at the same time getting the government to force their customers to pay 10 times as much for their products. … well … did they mention that they’re making the world a better place? The light bulb that costs 10 times as much does, it is true, last four times as long. But if you’re a light-bulb maker, that’s a pretty good trade. [Brian M. Carney]

       The first problem? Exaggeration. CFL’s do not cost 10 times more than incandescent light bulbs. Yes, they cost more, but the overall savings will more than make up for this price change. Incandescent light bulbs lose about 90% of their energy to heat and have a life span that is approximately 10 times less than that of a CFL.    

     There are other arguments against increased use of CFLs besides price. CFLs do contain mercury, although the very small amount (about 3 milligrams) poses no serious threat to human life or the population. The following chart shows the comparison of a CFL’s mercury content with other basic items.

Product	Amount of Mercury	Number of Equivalent CFLs
Compact fluorescent lamp	5 milligrams	1
Watch battery	25 milligrams	5
Dental amalgams	500 milligrams	100
Home thermometer	500 milligrams – 2 grams	100 – 400
Float switches in sump pumps	2 grams	400
Tilt thermostat	3 grams	600
Electrical tilt switches and relays	3.5 grams	700

(http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/energystar/english/consumers/questions-answers.cfm#expensive)

       Still, careful disposal is necessary, especially if we are going to greatly increase their use. Additionally, because CFLs use up far less energy (10 x less) than incandescent light bulbs, they have the potential to decrease greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fuel powered energy plants. Coal-powered plants are a source of mercury emissions. A reduction in these systems may be able to balance the levels of mercury from the CFLs. A ripple-effect of decreasing power plants is the reduction of thermal pollution. Thermal pollution changes the temperature of bodies of water, often by using these natural sources as a cooling factor for factories. Thermal pollution can affect animal life in those bodies of water as many species require a specific temperature for survival.

     While around the subject of disposal, it is important to note the effect on landfills. Because CFLs last around 10 times longer than incandescent bulbs, the amount of bulbs in landfills decreases likewise. With the decreased amount of disposed packaging as well, the savings become even more significant. Less space needed for landfills means fewer habitats destroyed for this purpose and increased cleanliness in communities that would otherwise be home to disposal areas. With the issue of environmental racism present in today’s society, this aspect becomes increasingly important.

       Natural habitats (and all the plant and animal life they contain) can benefit even further from CFL use because their impact on the demand for fossil fuels reduces mining for these resources. (Also, less transportation and processing of these fuels leads to a smaller amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.)

      Overall, it’s a win-win situation. CFLs have the potential to make a noticeable impact on environmental issues, and a small amount of patience will allow money savings as well. We’re paying more because we’re receiving a better product. As for the incredible profit the light bulb companies are supposedly raking in… well, shouldn’t it cost them more to produce this energy-efficient bulb? Anyway, it doesn’t seem as though there are nearly enough green consumers out there to change the market just yet.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-0111edit4jan11,0,6005999.story

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/energystar/english/consumers/questions-answers.cfm#expensive

http://www.greeniacs.com/index.php?option=com_mtree&task=listcats&cat_id=451&Itemid=114#t

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200704compactfluorescentlights.html

Continued Debate Over Ethanol

       One of my New Year’s resolutions being to actually look at the newspaper more often, I picked up The Chicago Tribune recently and found one of the cover stories addressing a class topic: ethanol as as alternate fuel source.

       According to the article, by reviewing the statistics from 2007 compared to previous years, one can see a clear increase in corn prices due to the “Ethanol Boom.” In 2002, for example, the net income for grain famers stayed around $30,000. In 2007, though, the number hovered around $110,000. (University of Illinois research) If I’ve figured it out correctly, that’s an increase of nearly 73%.

       However, this increase indicates high sonsumer prices for basic food items. This year’s greater than 4% increase in food prices compared to the previous 2.4% increase has sparked debate on the overall good of ethanol as an alternative fuel source. According to The Grocery Manufacturers Association, the blame rests mainly on those federal laws which encourage the use of ethanol for fuel. One lobbyist for GMA, Scott Faber, is quoted, “The government has intervened in a way that would make Stalin blush.” As I blogged a little earlier, a new energy bill is in motion, calling for the mixture of motor fuels with 15 gallons of corn-based ethanol by 2015. Many see this bill as an aid to our national security.  In the words of Mark W. Leonard of Iowa, quoted in The New York Times, “We need to quit sending money to people who want to blow us up.”

       The views from the farmers’ end appear mainly optomistic, suggesting that the improved yield of 160 bushels per acre two years ago compared to the current 200 bushels per acre may ease some of the tension. An Illinois farmer featured in the article (Chicago Tribune), Len Corzine, sees the improving techonolgies as a possible means to lessen the gap created by the demand for ethanol. Still, others argue that this view is a false hope because it means assuming that patterns for supply and demand will stay relatively similar in upcoming years.

Sources:

The Chicago Tribune. “Ethanol Boom a Mixed Bag” by Joshua Boak. (12/26/07)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/business/18food.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&th&emc=th

http://www.public-domain-photos.com/landscapes/fields