No More Coal?

       According to a recent article from the Environmental News Network, quiet opposition to coal-fired power plants “is quickly evolving into a national tidal wave of grassroots opposition from environmental, health, farm, and community organizations and a fast-growing number of state governments.”

       Recently, 59 coal-fired power plants were refused licenses,  the corporation TXU (Texas-Based Utility) reduced its planned coal plants from 11 to 3, and Florida’s $5.7 billion power plant was refused a license from Florida’s Public Service Commission, choosing instead to focus on the construction of the world’s largest solar-thermal power plant.

       Why all the opposition? There are many reasons:

1. The first, of course, revolves around climate change concerns. For instance, Florida, a state very susceptible to rising water levels, is strongly against new power plants.
2. Funding. Construction Costs which have the technology to keep plants as efficient as possible are sky-high.
3. Health concerns. Environmental proponents of resistance to coal plants bring up the issue of mercury emissions and the thousands of deaths per year from air pollution.
4. The Bush administration’s failure to endorse an underground plan to capture and store CO2 emissions from power plants. (Costs were too high).
5. Companies refusing to examine alternate methods to increase electricity use efficiency. (i.e. insulating buildings or using more efficient light bulbs)
6. Coal stocks are down and banks are being encouraged to reconsider funding coal-fired power plants.
7. Many believe that limiting coal plants will encourage the development and use of alternate energy sources, mainly wind, solar, and geothermal.

       Many see the changes to the coal industry as a step in the right direction, the next step being to extend tax credits for alternative sources.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10sun2.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

http://www.enn.com/top_stories/commentary/31257

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

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

New Energy Bill

      Environmental issues continue to find attention in politics. Last week, the Senate passed an energy bill that called for the first increase in automobile efficiency in 32 years. Cars, small trucks, and SUVs would need to run 35 miles/gallon. Intended to be a step forward in the fight against global warming, the bill proposed an increase in the use of ethanol, predicting the use of 36 gallons a year by 2020. Finally, it called for an increase in the efficiency of appliances and lighting.

     Such a decision could hurt profits of auto companies which have strongly opposed any increase for the past few decades. Even though the technology to make these changes is available, the new taxes on automaking companies would hurt the large profits they’ve been building up.

     However, these measure could save 1.1 million barrels of oil a day (by 2020). A reduction of greenhouse gases by 20 million tons has been predicted. Finally, consumers would save money on fuel. The bill is now at the House, and a vote is expected within the week, though Bush says he will veto if the oil industry taxes are not removed. According to Sen. Daniel Inouye, the bill “demonstrates to the world that America is a leader in fighting global warming.” Considering how much we’ve contributed to global warming, I’d say it’s about time for some of these changes.

Sources:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-congress-energy,0,438578.story

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20071201/lawmakers-reach-gas-mileage-boost-deal_1.htm

The Hybrid Debate

     The documentary “Future Cars” demonstrated how beneficial hybrid cars can be to the environment. Besides their appealing design and easy operation, these cars promised pollution reduction and less money spent on fuel. However, many still question if switching to a hybrid is really worthwhile.          

     The process of actually creating these hybrid vehicles takes a great deal of energy. Typically, more complicated systems require more energy, and hybrids tend to be more complex internally than conventional cars. Additionally, hybrids tend to break down easier, and the disposal of old hybrid cars is more difficult with the issue of getting rid of the battery. The batteries themselves, if not disposed of properly, can have their own affects on the environment.

     On the positive side, studies from the “Green Car Club” show that a hybrid reduces tailpipe emissions by 90% and almost completely eliminates evaporative emissions. Still, they do contribute to greenhouse gas emissions because they are powered by a petroleum -based fuel

     Although it would be nice to think that consumers would make their transportation choices based on environmental impact, cost will probably remain the number one factor. A hybrid would mean less money spent on gasoline, but to make up for the initial cost difference, one would probably need to drive the car for approximately 10 years.

     Right now, the technology doesn’t seem to hold enough advantages to begin significantly replacing the cars we drive now. Even with reduced emissions, the amount of driving continues to increase. Utilizing public transportation is probably the easiest way to reduce transmissions though it is not a very popular option. Until hybrids are made to last as long as the cars we use now and make up for the cost difference, a significant change in consumer buying doesn’t seem likely.

SOURCES:

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~coreyp/hybridenvimp.html

http://www.thehybriddebate.com/blog/environment/2007/10/18/hidden-costs-hybrid-fleet/

http://whattheymissed.blogspot.com/2007/11/does-going-hybrid-save-enough-dollars.html

China’s Fight with Pollution

  

   China has taken significant steps in industrialization. While beneficial in ways, this also means more pollution. Many may not find the problem extremely urgent, but certain investment advisors have already recommended investing in Singapore rather than in Hong Kong where the pollution is especially bad.

    Agencies are working to find fresh methods of attacking this problem, though. In some places, this involves a serious “crackdown.” In the words of Chen Jian, the director of the Guangdong Energy Conservation & Monitoring Center, “The police use dogs to sniff drugs — we use our people to sniff pollution.” Basically, teams are being sent out to track down large quantities of harmful emissions.

     This is a new focus for China. For the past few decades, the country has centered on improving growth. According to the Chicago Tribune, though, China is expected to produce more greenhouse gases than even the United States this year. The threat of harmful gases to China’s economy along with the pressure of creating clean grounds for the upcoming Beijing  Olympics have created somewhat of a panic for China’s growing pollution problem.

     China’s goal is ambitious: a 10% cut in emissions by 2010. To do this, environmental programs are zeroing in on electrical power. Claiming it would be nearly impossible to cut consumption, companies aim for “a 20 percent cut in energy use per unit of national economic output by 2010.”

    Though these plans have the potential to greatly benefit the environment, China continues to increase its industry which may call for a greater demand of resources. China’s major concern is the economy and continual growth may cause severe problems. However, we cannot expect other industrializing countries to change their emissions output without considering how much our own nation contributes to the problem.

Sources: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-china_greisingsep24,0,2729905.story

http://usasearch.gov/search?v%3aproject=firstgov-images&v%3aframe=form&frontpage=1&

How Much Coal Does Your Radio Burn?

The stereo (18Watts) in my room runs for approximately 1.5 hours a day.

18.0 W (60 s/ 1 min) (60 min/ 1 hr) (24 hr/ 1 d) (365 d/ 1 yr)

= 5.68 x 10^8 J

How much coal in a year? (30.6 kJ = 1 g)

5.68 x 10^8 J (1 kJ/10^3 J) = 5.68 x 10^5 kJ

5.68 x 10^5 kJ (1 g/30.6 kJ) = 1.86 x 10^4 g

= 18.6 kg of coal per year

      Coal produces an incredible amount of the world’s electricity. Because we use it at a much faster rate than it can form, coal is not a renewable resource. The amount of coal necessary to power only my small boombox is 18.6 kg. Put in perspective to the number of appliances simply in our own country, or even in one state, it is evident why there is so much focus on finding alternative energy sources.

      Perhaps the largest concern with coal is its release of carbon dioxide and the effect of these emissions to the global warming issue. Coal mining also produces sulferic acid when pyrite from coal surfaces and water mix together which leads to acid rain. The hazards of coal mining and safety issues with the processing are factors which make alternative sources an attractive option.

(sources: class notes  & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal)

The Green Side of Politics

     Politics does a have a green side, though frequently overshadowed by the war in Iraq. With the presidential election not far in the future, environmental views of candidates are entering discussion. A recent article in Time looked at the environmental positions of Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama.

      The first area that was looked at was the position of each on Carbon Caps. Carbon Caps are limits on a company on the amount of carbon emissions they can produce in total. However, companies are able to “sell” their unused amounts to other companies which need to exceed the limit.

       Examples of this system actually show success. For example, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has endorsed a cap-and-trade program which has been successful in emission reduction and involves prices that are lower than expected. However, other companies are reluctant to become involve because of their suspicions about monitoring with such systems.

       Clinton, Edwards, McCain, and Obama support “cap-and-trade,” and Romney claims he would consider it if it was part of a global plan. Clinton, Edwards, and Obama all intend to pursue an 80% carbon cut by 2050. McCain intends 65%.

     The second issue, energy efficiency, was generally supported by all candidates. Obama called for perhaps the biggest change: a 50% improvement by 2030. Clinton claimed a goal of making new federal buildings “zero emission” byt 2030. Obama also calls for the greatest change in mileage with 50 m.p.g. in 18 years. (Clinton and McCain each call for 35 m.p.g. and Edwards for 40 m.p.g.)

     For a greater pursuit of nuclear energy, Guiliani, McCain, and Romney are the greatest supporters, and Edwards is the only one to directly oppose the expanded use of nuclear power. For Edwards, the safety hazard is not worth the risk. Nuclear Accidents have the potential to harm thousands of people, contaminate the land, and cause severe economic damage. For instance, an accident in 1979 at a power plant in Pennsylvania (“The Three Mile Island Accident”) caused a severe economic blow and forced many civilians to evacuate their homes.

     The final area that was discussed was drilling, especially within the ANWR (Arcti National Wildlife Refuge). The opinion on the issue was very diverse: Four of the six candidates opposed drilling (Clinton, Edwards, McCain, and Obama) while Giuliani and Romney support the process. Additionally, Giuliani supports further drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and he has received campaigning funds from drilling companies.

     It’s evident that no one candidate has all the environmental answers, though many ambitious plans have been proposed. Each has unique views on particular issues, and looking at the whole candidate becomes necessary. Now more than ever, environmental issues are beginning to take their place in the political realm.

Sources:

Time, Nov. 12th, 2007. (Article by Jeffrey Kluger)

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/3974

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/

http://www.answers.com/three%20mile%20island

California in Flames

            California is no stranger to fire. The Santa Ana winds have spread massive forest fires before, notably in 1889 and 2003. However, this October’s wildfires have set a new record. Approximately 400,000 acres have been left in ruins, forcing around one million people to flee their homes. Even with 7,000 firefighters on the scene and helicopters dropping fire retardants, the damage was severe.  Fires have long been a part of southern California’s natural cycle. Occasionally fires are necessary to clear the land of detritus and dry plant material. So why has this fire had such a dramatic effect?

            According to Time, the most obvious answer is us. In the past few decades, more and more people have decided to make California their home. The result is overcrowded cities and little space between civilization and the wilderness. Electrical wires and other hazardous applications also increase the probability that a fire will start in an already severely dry area.           

            The U.S. Forest Service isn’t necessarily helping the situation either. Their policy of smothering any small fire may be an essential safety measure in the city, but in the wilderness, the absence of fire may increase problems. By preventing even the small fires, the chance for an enormous and devastating fire to occur increases. It is natural for forests to routinely dispose of its old vegetation. We are throwing natural off its course.

              Those who have evacuated their homes are thankful for their lives, though their homes may lie in ruins. However, the recent fires may be only the beginning. The Santa Ana winds actually tend to reach their highest in the winter. Additionally, the National Weather Service suspects that La Nina will be present this year. La Nina results in colder temperatures in the Pacific Ocean and dry weather for the South. 

            Of course, many are quick to point the finger at global warming. While researchers have to be cautious in making extreme judgments, most climate studies do indicate that the Southwest is becoming drier as temperatures rise. 

           It’s difficult for the residents of Southern California to return to the destruction and rebuild, knowing that they probably have not had the end of fire problems. Severe methods of change are necessary to turn the situation around, though. Population growth has been unlimited because federal policies protect private homes. So, even if the area is an insecure zone, families feel they are covered. The Forest Service spends the majority of its time acting as a firefighting squad, smothering all minor fires to protect homes. Those who choose to make their homes in high-risk areas should be aware of the possible dangers. Water levels have also grown dangerously low. When fires do occur, the water supply isn’t always enough to stop them.

            Southern California does not appear to be sitting in self-pity, though. Nature has already begun its cycle of rebirth and families are already beginning the move back to their homes, though not knowing what they will find. However, the fires have been a wake-up call to some that things cannot go on the way they are.

                    

                                      

Source:

Time, November 5, 2007

http://usasearch.gov/search?v%3aproject=firstgov-images&v%3aframe=form&frontpage=1&

The New and Improved “Eco-Shape Bottle”

     Perhaps you’ve caught a glimpse of the newest addition to the cafeteria scene: the “Eco-Shape Bottle.” No, it does not have a “hand grip” and no, it’s not out for new style. Ice Mountain’s new bottle shape is actually intended to benefit the environment.

     So why all the fuss about a water bottle? The increasing amount of disposed water in the United States bottles indicates more and more Americans are choosing the beneficial water option rather than picking up a soda can. That’s a positive sign, right? Well, Americans are disposing of approximately 38 billion plastic water bottles per year and more than 1.5 million barrels of petroleum are necessary for their manufacture.

      The new attention for plastic water bottles has naturally inspired a marketing race for companies to please their green customers. Nestle (owner of Ice Mountain, Arrowhead, and Poland Spring) has decreased the amount of plastic in its bottles by 30% and Coca Cola (owner of Dasani) has reduced raw materials by 30%. Pepsi (owner of Aquafina) boasts a 40% decrease in plastic.  

     Nalgene and Sigg USA are also getting in on the green movement, creating new reusable water bottles. Sigg actually carried out its advertising to the point of having models carry its water bottles down the runway to promote sales. Nalgene may not have models employed but is selling its water bottles for a cheaper price and declaring that 300 plastic water bottles are cut with just one of its reusable bottles. “For a clue about people who spend $1.50 for a little bottle of Evian, try spelling Evian backwards.” (findarticles.com)

Here in the Chicago area, simple tap water may be an easy way to take part in a solution. No plastic, no caps, no paper labels. Studies show that Lake Michigan’s water may differ only in taste from bottled water. Any extra bacteria found has shown to be harmless and within the federal guidelines for safe water. What’s more is that public water facilities are required to meet federal standards and describe where the water is collected and how it is treated. Not all bottling companies list their sources. In fact, previous investigations have actually found companies selling basic tap water (sometimes further processed, sometimes not) in a plastic bottle. If you don’t find the taste an issue, consider buying a Nalgene. You’ll benefit the environment and probably save some cash while you’re at it.

  

Sources: http://www.statesman.com/green/content/business/stories/other/08/19/0819waterbottles.html http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20000827/ai_n13872140 

http://www.icemountainwater.com/DoingOurPart/EcoShapeBottle.aspx