 |
| Photo: arbyreed |
Apparently Lake Mead is currently at so low a point (around 50% of its capacity) that the main water supply 'tube' for Las Vegas is in danger of rising above the surface. The Hoover Dam generates around 2 gigawatts of electricity and serves about 1.3 million people - not sure how it would be replaced if that generating capacity were lost.
You've probably seen the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch list to know what fishies are good or bad to buy. Instead of carrying around the folding wallet sized card or trying to remember what's what, they now have a mobile friendly website (www.seafoodwatch.org) and a texting service. Text 'fish monkfish' to 30644 and you get the important details sent back to you right away. Very useful.
NYC now has a program where you can officially be a recycling champion (some might say 'nag') for your apartment building, which they've apparently based on 'market research' (focus groups for trash?) plus the results of the waste characterization studies. I guess the latter tell them that they need some help getting people to recycle in big apartment buildings, since apartment owners tend to ignore mail from the city or not care about sorting their recycling or something, I guess.
 |
| Photo: Civil Twilight |
"Marcus Felson, a professor at the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University, has concluded that lighting is effective in preventing crime mainly if it enables people to notice criminal activity as it’s taking place, and if it doesn’t help criminals to see what they’re doing. Bright, unshielded floodlights—one of the most common types of outdoor security lighting in the country—often fail on both counts, as do all-night lights installed on isolated structures or on parts of buildings that can’t be observed by passersby (such as back doors). A burglar who is forced to use a flashlight, or whose movement triggers a security light controlled by an infrared motion sensor, is much more likely to be spotted than one whose presence is masked by the blinding glare of a poorly placed [flood light]."
Kudos the the International Dark-Sky Association for trying to keep our night skies visible and helping us to use less energy in the process. Another interesting proposal comes from the group Civil Twilight, who won a Metropolis Magazine Next Generation Award for their design concept: streetlights that respond to ambient moonlight, dimming and brightening each month as the moon cycles through its phases.
What does it actually mean for a country to comply with the Kyoto emissions targets? Will it really have a bad effect on the economy of a country that tries to implement it? An interesting perspective on how it might affect Canada. The key point is probably really not that a country meets the goals exactly, it's that it makes a good effort to control and reverse greenhouse gas emissions, and that it can be done in a way that is economically friendly.
invisible5.org is an interesting sounding (I haven't done it, but would definitely if I do the SF-LA stretch again) audio tour - like a narrated museum tour, except this is outside, made to be listened to in your car. It highlights the environmental problems of the I-5 corridor. The website is interesting with some good pictures.
The Energy Information Administration released its far forward looking report on energy sources and consumption in the country. Alternative and biomass sources play a smaller part in our country's future then the current amount of news about them might lead one to believe, leaving our fossil fuel friend coal to do most of the heavy lifting. The report doesn't talk directly about any possible reduction in energy consumption, although I guess it might be implied in reduced rates of energy demand increase.
I guess we are a growing country, so we can't expect energy saving technologies and our better instincts to overcome our growing needs for power, right? I suppose to a large degree, much of the energy in this country is used by long lived assets such as buildings which cannot normally just be replaced when the latest technology comes out. It is highly unlikely that our transportation infrastructure will be scaled down, we can hope that the deficiency of the most common modes of our transportation increase, but again we run into the problem of long lived assets.
I guess we will all just have to be happy with chipping away at the margins of energy consumption, and maybe wait for the next big breakthrough in fusion power.
Learn a little bit about energy consumption, and take a pledge to do your part and reduce your energy consumption at the Six Degrees of Energy Efficiency web site.
It's interesting though, that this organization - which is largely funded by the many companies that are its "partners" - promote saving energy through products substitution. You can reduce your energy use, if you buy a new product that uses less energy - preferably one of the products made by one of the partner companies. This web site deals with home/residential energy consumption so the fact that increased industrial energy used to create these new products that use less energy is not part of the equation. But then, Americans are inveterate consumers, so I suppose promoting the consumption of energy saving products is better than nothing.
Maybe I missed something over the past six years, but hasn't the administration done all it can to disprove or otherwise ignore global warming? Or is "climate change" not the same thing? Well, at least the Department of Energy seems to have come around.
DOE Releases Climate Change Technology Program Strategic Plan
DOE released on September 20th the Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) Strategic Plan, which details measures to accelerate the development and reduce the cost of new and advanced technologies that avoid, reduce, or capture and store greenhouse gas emissions. CCTP is the technology component of a comprehensive U.S. strategy introduced by President Bush in 2002 to combat climate change. That strategy includes measures to advance climate change science; spur clean energy technology development and deployment; promote international collaboration; and slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions through voluntary, incentive-based, and mandatory partnerships.
The CCTP Strategic Plan organizes roughly $3 billion in federal spending for climate technology research, development, demonstration, and deployment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase economic growth. The plan sets six complementary goals: (1) reducing emissions from energy use and infrastructure; (2) reducing emissions from energy supply; (3) capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide; (4) reducing emissions of other greenhouse gases; (5) measuring and monitoring emissions; and (6) bolstering the contributions of basic science to climate change. It examines energy efficiency, hydrogen, renewable energy, and renewable fuels among an array of other low-emissions energy technologies.
The strategic plan also notes the difficulty of stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions; examining a range of scenarios, the report notes that cumulative global emissions over the next century would have to be reduced by the equivalent of 300 billion to a trillion metric tons of carbon. Deploying a million megawatts of wind power would cut emissions by only about 1 billion metric tons of carbon per year. On the other hand, advanced energy efficiency technologies could cut global carbon emissions by 270 billion tons over the next century. See the DOE press release and the CCTP Strategic Plan.
I want an Energy Orb to tell me when I should be conserving energy. What a great little device, simple and informative.
From a colleague of mine at the CUNY Sustainable Building Initiative (Susan Robinson), some research on how to Green Power your apartment when you are renting in New York City:
Ok, I finally got around to investigating green power options for my apartment and thought I'd share my research. Fortunately, you can easily switch over and pay little to nothing more for greener energy sources. Here's the deal--
Right now with regular ConEd, you pay a variable rate, depending on the supply and demand of local energy. Right now it's 15.6 cents, and it typically goes up to 17 or 18 cents in the summer when demand is higher (due to air conditioning).
To switch to greener electric sources you have two options, and both of them are administered through ConEd. Neither of them charge you to make the switch and there is no cancellation fee.
1) GREEN plan. 65% of your power would come from hydroelectric sources and 35% from wind sources. It's cost is 17.5 cents/KWH. (A *fixed* rate for 12 months.)
2) WIND plan. 100% comes from wind sources. It's 19 cents/KWH. (Also, a *fixed* rate for 12 months.) It's more ideal for those trying to be *really* green, as hydro sources don't pollute the air, but still have negative environmental impacts. Wind farms have very, very little actual environmental impact-- the complaint typically had to do with "visual impact" in the areas they are developed, but they're a lot prettier than a typical power plant!
I live in a big 3-bedroom apt. and typically use about 300 KWH per month. So, with the WIND plan my roomates and I will split an extra 5-10 dollars a month. If I were to choose the GREEN plan, then we'd be paying the same in the summer and a few dollars more in the winter.
Here's the kicker, tho-- Con Ed will send you a check for $25 for using either the GREEN or WIND plans, assuming you've paid your bill and use the service for at least 3 months. (The 25 bucks is really coming from the NYS government.)
So, there's really no reason not to at least switch to the GREEN plan, and if you're willing to give an extra few dollars a month to encourage the development of wind energy sources, I'd definitely recommend it. To switch call "ConEd Solutions" at 1-888-320-8991. It took them just a few minutes and will go into effect next month.
Global Insight has an interesting perspective on energy use and efficiency in production and industry (particularly energy production). Interestingly:
It is important to note, though, that in generating $691 billion worth of energy output, the [United States] energy sector itself used $495 billion worth of energy inputs, resulting in a value-added contribution of only $196 billion (28.4% of total). Thus, energy use as an intermediate input is nearly eight times as large as its use in final consumption.
Stanford has an online (and downloadable) photo exhibit about damage to the campus from the 1906 earthquake.
When global warming really kicks in and the polar ice caps start melting, causing flooding along coastal areas world-wide, how bad will it really be? Check out this handy interactive map.
With the current Republican Congress and President, it seems like it has been too difficult to raise the CAFE standards and get more fuel efficient cars manufactured that way. So the EPA is (voluntarily? being forced?) finally reforming the way it figures out the fuel efficiency numbers for production vehicles:
EPA has long been criticized for using outdated standards for evaluating fuel economy that consumer groups, auto industry officials and car buyers say severely overstate mileage by failing to reflect contemporary "real world" driving conditions.
If many cars have lower miles-per-gallon ratings, car manufacturers will need to manufacture smaller, more fuel efficient cars to entice buyers and meet their fuel efficiency quotas:
The potential for dramatically lower fuel mileage estimates also may mean limits on what you may find on showroom floors in years to come. "Companies will be forced to build smaller cars and move away from larger ones," said Jack Nerad, a Kelley Blue Book analyst. "Over the course of time, car companies have essentially subsidized their economy vehicles to make sure that their fleets" meet what are known as CAFE standards, or, Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency standards for their entire lineup, Nerad said. "They kind of artificially lowered the prices of high fuel economy cars."
I don't really believe the automakers when they complain, I think they can produce more efficient vehicles without too many problems and people will be quite happy buying them. If all their vehicles have to be more fuel efficient, they can use some of that research they put into more horsepower in smaller engines into getting better efficiency at the same horsepower.
I just noticed that the Hunter College news page has an item about the studio I was in (link is to item above it), we assisted the Bronx River Arts Center.
In the San Joaquin Valley of California, cows might be producing more pollution than cars. Go figure.
A couple of researchers from Stanford have produced a paper with maps detailing global wind power available for wind energy production. It's free, it's non polluting. Stop whining about wind turbines ruining your view, pollution will do a much better job at ruining your view. At least turbines are interesting to look at.
New York City broke some power usage records again yesterday. This is turning out to be one hot and humid summer. Ugh.
If you are interested in a back to nature, very relaxing, and very fun vacation in Costa Rica, check out this place: Finca Tres Semillas
My friend can set you up on a tour of Costa Rica, including the place above, run by his sister. I have been there, and it - like all of Costa Rica - is beautiful.
Maybe you have heard of pollution credit trading, where power plant companies that pollute buy credits on a market so they don't have to physically upgrade their plants. Now there is a company that will sell credits to automobile owners to "cancel" the pollution from their cars. Of course, all the environmental types with relatively non polluting cars have been the only buyers so far.
"Heal the Bay's 15th Annual Beach Report Card provides essential water quality information to the millions of people who swim, surf, or dive in California coastal waters. Essential reading for ocean users, the report card grades approximately 350 locations year-round (about 460 locations in dry weather from April to October) on an A-F scale based on the risk of adverse health effects to swimmers and surfers."