Zero Waste

A new movement is arising across national parks, schools, restaurants, stadiums and big corporations in which the plan of action to help with recycling is to produce less waste. This may seem like a no brain idea however actually executing it is more difficult that said. The best way is to ideally not use any non biodegradable materials, recycle what you can and to make compost instead of throwing away certain garbage.

What is normally just talked about being done is actually executed. The cafe at Yellowstone National Park is now using plastic, plant-based utensils, which if left out on the heat and sun for too long will "magically" dissolve. Eight North American Honda plants have implemented a recycling plan to recycle unused parts to such a degree that they no longer even have garbage disposals. Ecco, a popular restaurant no longer throws away table scraps from leftover meals. Instead they are taken to a giant compost heap out back. As you can see this strategy is slowly spreading across the nation and may be a bright solution to helping our environment.

One of the reasons for strongly implementing this method is the fact that landfills are running out and it is becoming difficult to secure permits for new landfills in additions to the decomposing methane needed for the landfills which also play a factor in the heating of the Earths atmosphere. A spokesperson from the Environmental Protection Agency realized the value of landfills and understands that we don't need to fill them up with the unnecessary.

This zero waste policy is becoming increasingly popular and is now even spreading to the packaging industry. The executive director of the Biodegradable Products Institute stated that companies across the world are coming to then and inquiring about their packaging and plastics.

Hopefully growing interest and implementation will continue on its path helping out the Earth.

Solar Decathlon

For three weeks during this month the Department of Energy hosted a competition called the Solar Decathlon. In this competition 20 teams comprised of college and university students were challenged to design and build the most efficient and appealing solar powered house (disappointedly SUNY Albany was not one of the competitors) . The teams had to raise funds to build their houses and also had to work with contractors. After the construction of the houses was complete, the houses were opened for viewing by the public. Personally, I believed that competitions like the Solar Decathlon are what this country needs to motivate the youth to take an interest in whats really happening to this planet and work together to find solutions to problems like finding alternative energy. In addition, these competitions can help make the people who are oblivious (and sometimes ignorant) to ecological issues more aware. While sitting in my Nutrition class last week as my Professor briefly talked about global warming, I overheard a girl sitting behind me ask her friend "what's global warming"? Thinking back, maybe if competitions like the Solar Decathlon were more publicized in schools (or even mandatory) that girl would not have made that comment and I would not have flashed her the "how stupid could you be" look. You can find more information about the solar decathlon and even take virtual tours of the houses here: http://www.solardecathlon.org/2011_rfp.cfm

Why the Objection to Wind Energy?

Something that has mystified me for some time, long before taking this class, has been the inevitable public opposition to the construction of windmills. Any time I come across a story, whether it be on the news or the internet, involving an attempt to build windmills, it is, without fail, accompanied by some small but vocal minority voicing their objection. When asked why they are so set against wind energy, the protesters almost always point out that the windmills detract from the aesthetics of the natural environment. While it is true that such construction would alter the outlook of its surroundings, can windmills really be that much of an eyesore? It seems to me that most people would regard a windmill as more of a feat of technology than a blemish on nature. Plus this vocal minority always ignores the tremendous benefits of wind energy. Some of these individuals claim to be environmentalists, defending nature against mankind's destructive nature. While I am all for anyone trying to protect the environment, indeed, not enough people do so, these people are misguided. Wind energy is an ally of environmentalists; it is basically inexhaustible, and it alleviates some reliance on fossil fuel. These people can "defend" nature all they want, but what they are really doing is furthering the deterioration of the planet.

In searching for more information on wind energy, I came across a website for the Community Environmental Council (http://www.cecsb.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=61&Itemid=100&gclid=CKyegceBwJ0CFVlM5QodMDk1jA), based in California, a state constantly facing energy difficulties. According to the website, strategic construction of wind turbines "in our region could theoretically produce over 100 times our current demand for electricity." Wouldn't a few "eye sores" be worth this kind of energy conservation? Lastly, the website states that:

"It is for these reasons – the competitive cost, the strength of the industry, and the regional potential – that wind power is a major component of our plan to eliminate the use of fossil fuels in our region. We propose that our county develop about 1,100 megawatts of wind power from both onshore and offshore sites - enough to meet our total current electricity demand and almost 100 percent of our projected electricity demand in 2030."

With such great benefits to wind energy, and such insignificant drawbacks, isn't it time everyone abandoned such pointless protests?

Geothermal Enery

When looking for alternative sources of energy, I have heard of Geothermal energy, but i did not know much about it. I even had a geothermal heating and cooling system installed in my high school but I still didn't know how it worked. I found out that Geothermal works by circulating water in underground loops which are natural parts of the earth. These loops are known as heat exchangers which are buried underground about 150-300 feet below the earth's surface because of the constant temperature. Heat exchangers consist of high density polyethylene pipe which is able to withstand the conditions and temperature underground. The constant temperature of the earth helps to balance the temperature of the air that is being circulated through the heat exchangers. Next the circulated water is transported to air heat pumps located in the buildings and heated air is pumped out to warm your rooms. Geothermal is a very safe and natural way to control the heating of cooling of your home or office no matter its size. It also helps to reduce global warming and helps to contribute to the goal of geothermal exchange. These geothermal systems are also very easy to use and can help people save 25 to 40 percent on their energy efficiency. Geothermal can also be used to generate electricity by the use of steam to drive turbines which generate the electricity.

Although their are many advantages to Geothermal energy systems they are disadvantages are well. One of the biggest disadvantages is the low number of proper locations for a powerplant. An ideal locations has suitable hot rocks at depths that allow for easy drilling, also the rock above the hot rocks must be easy enough to drill through. Another disadvantage of geothermal energy is that sometimes locations my temporarily run out of steam, which won't leave the power plant with enough power to generate electricity. Also geothermal energy is not easily transported and can only be used but people of business's that are in close vinicity to the power plant. In addition geothermal energy extracting also releases hazadorous gases and minerals which can come up through the steam. Geothermal energy extracting can also cause a number of low level earthquakes in the producing areas which damage homes and foundations.

Hopefully the Advantages out way the disadvantages and more people will start to use geothermal enery.

Solar Ponds

An general source of water, ponds are very impotant and fundemental to man. They have been alterered and recreated to fit different needs and wants of man. They are an important factor in domestic, agricultural and recreational usages. Ponds, whether natural or man made, hold many deposits which have had an preserving effect on materials that naturally would have deteriorated over time. This is of great interest to paleo-enviormentailist. They are able to examine and study preserved matter that give much greater insight to the some aspects of the past. Modern day ponds can be utilized for agricultural usages in which water is retained and irrigated to moisten and fertilize the soil. Recreational usages include swimming, aesthetic design and fishing. Alot of commercial fisheries use ponds for thier easy availability. In addition there are solar ponds, which are designed to store solar energy.

Solar ponds are basically large soler thermal energy collectors. They are used for many reasons such as heating, solar power generation,desalination, refridgeration and drying. Solar ponds are saltwater sourses that forms vertical saline gradients of different concentrations. The bottom layer, which has the highest salinity, has high optical absorption and gets easily heated, increasing temperature and causing thermal expansion. The heat from the bottom layer can reach well over 90 degrees Celcius, levels three times that of the upper layer. The heat stored can be used for industrial hot water, heating buildings, Stirling engine for generating electricity and to drive an organic Rankine cycle. ( A Sterling engine operates by cyclic compression and expansion of air at different temperature levels so that there is a conversion of heat energy to work. Organic Rankine cycle uses liquid vapor phase changes and allows heat recovery from lower temperature sources.

Solar ponds are great for developing courntries because large area collectors are set up for a small price, the price of the pond liner. It also doesn't require a a seperate collector for thermal storage. The disadvantages include the fact that the evaporated water portions needs constant replenishment and removal of aslt crystals becomes expensive.

2012

For a while now, a hot topic for debate and discussion is the so-called 'apocalypse' coming December 12, 2012. Not to mention the movie "2012" coming out next month. It's been said that the Mayan calender 'runs out' and the poles will shift making the world one giant catastrophe leaving mankind extinct from Earth. Other doomsday theorists suggest that this is just a Western myth. According to an article by Mark Stevenson of the Associated Press of Yahoo! News, "Scientists say that, at best, the poles might change location by one degree over a million years, with no sign that it would start in 2012."
While research and other proven theories object to the apocalypse, I couldn't help but notice some things while I was reading our Cartoon Guide to the Environment textbook. For instance, in Chapter 3 (p.33), they show some graphed relations between population size and time with respect to carrying capacity. The first shows population size leveling off just below the carrying capacity. The second ("more typically") shows the population 'wobble' around the carrying capacity until it evens out. The third shows the population overshooting the carrying capacity so far that it leads to catastrophe. This "disrupts the ecosystem so badly that its carrying capacity is reduced, and the species suffers a die-off from which it never fully recovers." The 2012 doomsday theory popped into my mind the second I read that statement. Is our population going to level off at our carrying capacity or will we create even more baby booms to throw our ecosystem out of balance? Is this the 'end of the world' that has been predicted?
Even television is hopping on the bandwagon. History channel features shows discussing possible explanations for all these possible coincidences that have been predicted by researchers who did not have the kind of technology we have today. They simply studied the stars and patterns of the Earth. How can we really know their data is true?
The article 2012 isn't the end of the world, Mayans insist reveals much about the theory I had not known before and I encourage you to take a look. It eased some of my concerns and skepticism surrounding the whole idea. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

A Look at Clean Coal

After our class lecture detailing carbon cycles, and the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, I decided to do a little research on the fossil fuel type I knew least about: coal. More specifically, I decided to investigate what is commonly referred to in the political arena as "clean coal". Finding an adequate definition of clean coal was a daunting task alone. As best I could tell, there is virtually no difference between clean coal and ordinary coal, except in the hopes and aspirations of politicians. Apparently, clean coal is coal that power plants attempt to burn with less CO2 emission.

After performing a search on the term "clean coal" (it's worth noting that the second item on the drop-down menu that google provides to show common searches, for clean coal, behind "clean coal technology", was "clean coal myth"), I came across a plethora of websites spanning all sides of the political spectrum. In my best effort to stay unbiased, I chose a website with an .org ending, hoping to get facts not politics.

What I came across was a website called "This is Reality", and I checked out their section called "the facts" ( http://action.thisisreality.org/facts ). Obviously, this website is heavily anti-clean coal, but unlike many websites, it is not just a list of stats and information with scarcely available citations. Thisisreality.org basically shattered my optimism for clean coal to be the "greener" fuel of the future, as many politicians contend. Among the abundance of scary facts concerning clean coal (bear in mind that each of these facts has an attached citation) are these highlights:

-Burning coal is the dirtiest way we produce electricity.
-CO2 emissions from U.S. coal-based electricity are greater than emissions from all the cars and trucks in America.
-There are roughly 600 coal plants producing electricity in the U.S. Not one of them captures and stores its global warming pollution.

and these two gems from NBC's Brian Williams and attorney Blan Holman, respectively:

-"While you might have heard the phrase ‘clean’ coal during the presidential campaign, it's actually an oxymoron."
-"'Clean' coal is like a healthy cigarette."

After hearing politicians, lobbyists, and PR companies hail clean coal as the technology that will save the planet, I decided to finally look into it. I'm glad I did, because now I understand that it is not some miracle technology that will save us from global warming. Burning clean coal seems to be just as harmful, in terms of CO2 emissions, as burning any other fossil fuel. I encourage anyone curious about this topic to look into it themselves, by all means don't take my word for it. But along the way, check out Thisisreality.org for some concise, coherent information.