Those are the words of Max Donelan, a kinesiologist (one who studies anatomy, physiology, and mechanics of body movement -answers.com) at Simon Fraser University and the creator of an innovative new energy device. His invention uses a simple brace to be worn on both knees, which would generate about 2.5 watts of electricity per step.

     It’s not much, but it can add up, and we’ve reached the point where any conservation methods of energy, no matter how small, should be welcomed. As Time magazine reports, oil prices have climbed to their highest inflation point yet, and companies of all sizes are looking for ways to combat the fuel crisis.

     Creative inventions extend past the power of human movement too. Though not a huge source of energy, vibrations are a plentiful source of energy which we might utilize. The two examples the article mentions to paint a visual picture are the reverberating of a bridge during rush hour or a dance floor’s “pulse.” A British engineer, Steve Beeby, has already developed a device which, though it generates only a few hundred microwatts, has potential to be useful in everyday situations. For instance, those microwatts would be enough to power a pacemaker, reducing a patient’s need to continually undergo medical procedures to have batteries changed. Simple changes may have great effects.

     Still more “energy-scavenging” is taking place in two other areas: rain and heat.
     Power from rain would involve the use of piezoelectric materials. (Piezoelectricity is “electricity resulting from the application of mechanical pressure on a dielectric (non-conducting) crystal.” -Answers.com) A very small piece of this material, about the width of a strand of hair, can generate a microwatt for every drop of water. Again, not much, but useful. The article suggests using this power for sensors, such as those necessary in the cooling towers of power plants. There are ripple effects too. Take away energy from battery production, materials, and transportation, and we are looking at an effective tool.

       Finally, the harvesting of heat may actually outdo all the other potential power sources. We’ve long known that we lose a great amount of energy to heat (about 60% of the world’s energy), but today’s technology may allow us to use some of that lost heat. According to the article, one example involves the simple variance in temperature between two ends of a circuit, which may actually be transfered into currents. As of now, only small developments have been made (powering batteries, for instance). However, scientists are optomistic about the possibility of utilizing heat (as well as other creative sources) for future energy use.

Sources:

Time Magazine (March 17, 2008) “Not a Watt to Be Wasted” -Bryan Walsh

Answers.com

       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

       The term is “sick building syndrome,” and it includes the problems listed above. Typically, workers experience these syndromes only while inside their work buildings. A study spanning four years looked at buildings in 37 cities (not necessarily the smoggiest), testing indoor air quality and surveying employees in 100 buildings from these cities. The buildings were studied under different weather conditions and temperatures, and research consistently showed a link between atmospheric ozone layers outside and the amount of people suffering from these illnesses.

       Even in cities where smog levels were not noticeably high, workers still experienced some of the symptoms on a smaller level. The research noted that most buildings have mechanical ventilating systems rather than natural circulation systems. The type of filter seemed to affect the results as well. (Polyester or synthetic filters causing more trouble than fiberglass filters.)

       So how is smog becoming a problem inside? Scientists are still guessing, but research has found that unstable ozone molecules can react chemically with office building materials. Glass doesn’t tend to have much of a reaction, but according to this study, the bonds in polyester are easily broken up by ozone. The issue involves more than just filters, though. Ozone reacts with certain plastics, carpet fibers, and even oil from human skin, resulting in toxic irritants.

       Sick Building Syndrome doesn’t fluctuate solely with smog levels. In a workplace, especially one that is crowded and busy, even simple cleaning products, solvents in everyday desk products (like white-out), or particles from certain furniture material can contribute. However, evidence strongly supports the idea that smog levels outside are an important factor.

Downtown Houston is covered in a shroud of haze in the afternoon, as seen from the north Friday, Aug. 4, 1995. Mayor Bob Lanier has approved the city’s participation in a program to issue ozone smog alerts when air pollution reaches unhealthy levels. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

Sources:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=smog-can-make-people-sick-even-indoors

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/sbs.html

http://www.lhc.org.uk/members/pubs/books/sbs/sb04.htm

          Some background info:

-          U.S. production of ethanol has increased by over 4.9 billion per year since 2000.

-          In the United States, ethanol provides nearly 5% of transportation fuel. (Renewable Fuels Association.)

-          2007 federal legislature has promoted doubling ethanol production in the next 10 years.

-          The main crops used for alternate fuels have been corn, palm oil, sugar cane, and soybeans. 

       Because they are carbon neutral (the carbon released is balanced by carbon taken in naturally by the crops), these fuels do have great potential. It is the process of obtaining them which is presenting the challenge. Clearing land to create biofuel plantation is releasing large amounts of CO2 into the air. It means overturning the soil and leaving vegetation that isn’t burned away simply to rot. A side effect is that the earth has fewer “natural sponges” to take in the carbon. Plantations don’t take in nearly as much CO2 as rainforests or grasslands. The effects are harsher in some areas than in others. In a study in Indonesia, for example, researchers found that clearing one rainforest released such a large amount of carbon that a net reduction wouldn’t be likely for over 400 years.

            How are scientists approaching the problem? Many encourage exploring the benefits of municipal trash and crop waste further. These areas present a daunting task of supplying necessary technology, however. Some farmers in the United States have been replacing soybean fields with cornfields in response to the ethanol demand. As a result, other areas of the world are clearing more land for the soybean demand. It’s a cycle that continues with no serious net reduction in carbon emissions, if any. Though considered carbon neutral, biofuel systems also must take into account the additional emissions from transportation and production. 

Heavy equipment works the site of the First United Ethanol, LLC plant in Mitchell County near Camilla, Ga., Wednesday, Jan. 3, 2007. First United Ethanol LLC, founded in 2005 by farmers and businessmen from 13 counties looking for ways to enhance the value of Georgia farm products, is building a dry mill ethanol facility capable of producing 100 million gallons of fuel-grade ethanol per year. The $170 million facility is expected to use 36 million bushels of corn. (AP Photo/The Albany Herald, Don Stalvey)http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-sci-biofuel8feb08,1,7253036.story?ctrack=2&cset=true http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?ex=1360126800&en=93ca489d8380138f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

       A decline in certain species is just one example. Take the caribou of Alaska whose population has dropped in number by over 60,000. Close observations and research has shown us several reasons which correlate with rising temperatures. With an increase warmer days, the breeding time for mosquitoes and other insects extends, and the caribous expend precious energy trying to escape from them. Winters also present a challenge to the caribou. Increased precipitation buries the lichen they feed on deep beneath the snow and makes it more difficult for them to escape predators. Cold rains  turn to sheets of ice, making it often impossible for the caribou even to paw out their food. These effects carry into the spring when late blizzards delay migration.

       Animal species are not the only ones facing a threat. Human health is in danger as well. Although global warming leads to increased precipitation in some areas, it causes severe drought in others. Agriculture is disrupted, water sources become scarcer, and many nations which already struggle with poverty mus confront even greater challenges. Wildlife struggling to keep up with temperature change will make finding reliable food sources even more difficult. The intensity in events such as floods or hurricanes will destroy the land, eliminating even more sources of food. Additionally, rising temperatures tend to increase levels of smog, threatening those with respiratory illnesses. Studies are already showing a dramatic increase in asthma among children. 

       Though humans may be able to look ahead and make possible adaptations, we can only test the environment so far. Unless new changes are incorporated fast, even the walls built up to prevent flooding will be ineffective. Within the next 70 years or so, millions may lose their homes along the coast. With the rising population placing more and more stress on our planet, this disruption will undoubtedly change the economy as well. Some areas may suffer more with certain issues in the beginning, but global warming is still a worldwide problem that requires attention in full force from ALL nations. Many predict extreme political strife between countries in competition for resources over the basic necessities of food and water as well as energy resources, which will also be affected by the changing climate.

Sources:

National Geographic Documentary

http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?

tagID=274http://globalwarming2020.com/2008/01/26/the-effects-of-global-warming-how-to-live-with-them/ 

       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

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

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.

(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

       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

     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