well, could it?

Could your trash can solve the energy crisis? is the question asked by the latest issue of the New Scientist.

The article highlights one of many companies looking to convert your trash into clean, green energy.

IST is not alone in this revolution. It is one of a growing number of companies and research groups around the world working on gasification – a process that zaps household waste into energy and which, its advocates say, produces few or no harmful emissions. Yet as pilot gasification plants begin to spring up around the world, this apparent environmentalist’s dream is not being universally welcomed. Opponents argue that the process is far from clean and that its track record in terms of energy efficiency and emissions can hardly be considered green. Not to mention the fact that it encourages the throwaway society that the environmental movement has been trying so hard to get rid of. So what is the real story? Is vaporising trash the answer to our energy and waste-disposal woes, or an environmental wolf in sheep’s clothing?

It involves a process called plasma gasification, which is something I won’t go into, since the article is very informative about the process.  

I am directing you to this article a.) because it is interesting, but more importantly, b.) continuing proof that people are innovative and working hard to come up with alternatives to how we view waste and energy.  I think it is also important to look at criticism of these new process by looking at who is the critic.  Many large, established, politically active corporations are looking at these innovations as a threat.  They have the time and money for extensive ad campaigns to confuse the consumer with what is good and bad about emerging technologies.

I do think the article is well written and deserves attention so that you have this in your mind.  Especially, if we start seeing the attacks by other “scientists” challenging or refuting these processes as a possibility.

hello irena

IRENA: International Renewable Energy Agency:  the first multinational agency focused solely on spreading clean energy across the globe, officially launched this week, according to the Environmental News Network

The expectation of this group is that they will assist countries and private industries in the expansion of alternative energy installations.  “IRENA will help to remove the many obstacles which up to now have delayed the rapid expansion of renewables,” said Sigmar Gabriel, the German federal environment minister, in a conference address [PDF]. “The market is still distorted by subsidies for conventional energies, technological know-how is inadequate, information is not always correct.”

The initial conference was attended by 120 delegates from various nations, and the resulting treaty was signed by 75 countries, including Germany, Spain, United Arab Emirates and Kenya.  The United States, United Kingdom, Japan, China and Australia have yet to join, but have stated that they may still join in the future.

As was reported a month back, the United Arab Emirates is taking a stand for renewable energies and stated that it joined IRENA to provide energy expertise to the renewable energy sector and broaden support for its Masdar City project - a plan to create an entirely carbon-neutral, zero-waste city.

The increase in renewable energy installations is very positive.  In 2008 alone, about 12,000 megawatts of wind power capacity were installed, bringing the global total to 106,100 megawatts, according to the World Wind Energy Association. In addition, 9,740 megawatts of cumulative solar photovoltaic (PV) systems and at least 6,000 megawatts of geothermal energy projects have been installed, according to the Worldwatch Institute and U.N. Environment Programme, respectively.

As always, we are pleased with the increase of attention on taking action and fixing this problem, instead of arguing about is it real and where the responsibility lies.

* photo by Robert Scoble via Flickr

do you like clean water? then, you better pay attention…

The Colorado River is the water (and power) source for millions of people; it provides power to 3 million homes, waters 15% of our agriculture in the West, and gives one in 12 people something to drink. That is why many are concerned about its sustainability and longevity as a provider. In fact, many do not know this, but one environmental group has called listed it as the “most endangered” waterway.

The reason: the region could contain more oil than Alaska’s Arctic Wildlife Refuge and people want to get at it. And, now.

Rulings under the Bush Administration have not helped, either.

In the eight years George W. Bush has been in office, the Colorado River watershed has seen more oil and gas drilling than at any time in the past 25 years. Uranium claims have reached a 10-year high. Last week the departing administration auctioned off an additional 359,000 acres of federal land for gas drilling projects outside Moab, Utah.

As still more land is leased for drilling and a last-minute change in federal rules has paved the way for water-intensive oil shale mining, politicians and water managers are now being forced to ask which is more valuable: energy or water.

 

“The decisions we are making today will be dictating how we will be living the rest of our lives,” said Jim Pokrandt, a spokesman with the Colorado River Conservation District, a state-run policy agency. “We may have reached mutually exclusive demands on our water supply.”

It is estimated that if all the oil and natural gas drilling that has been requested to be done, were in fact, done, the annual demand would be the equivalent of shutting off the water to all of Southern California for five days. Oil shale drilling is the equivalent of 79 days.

And then there is a question of contamination. The major mining companies claim that they adhere to the EPA guidelines, but those guidelines are getting less strict every day. Add on top of that, Uranium mining, and there is the potential of radioactive material infecting our water supply.

Scientists say some degree of pollution is inevitable, because mining sometimes uses toxic chemicals like cyanide. It also exposes naturally toxic metals that would otherwise remain deep underground.

Drilling for uranium creates pathways where raw, radioactive material can migrate into underground aquifers that drain into the river. Surface water can seep into the drill holes and mine shafts, picking up traces of uranium and then percolating into underground water sources. The milling process itself creates six pounds of radioactive and toxic waste — including ammonia, arsenic, lead and mercury — for every ounce of uranium production.

So, this has become a question of competition: food and water for the citizenry or lack of dependency on foreign oil. Not to put too much pressure on the Obama Adminsistration, but many are looking to them to undo the leniency allowed by his predecessor and to come up with a happy medium between the two.

The full article can be found at ProPublica.

top 10 list

Ten Technologies to Save the Planet, by Chris Goodall… this is top ten list I can really get behind.

1.) Wind Power
2.) Solar Energy
3.) Power from the oceans
4.) Combined heat and power
5.) Super efficient homes
6.) electric cars
7.) Second-generation biofuels
8.) Carbon capture
9.) Biochar
10.) Biogas stoves

To read more you can go HERE, to see the article via The New Scientist… or buy the book using the link to Amazon, above.

the power of the ocean

I have posted about this before, which you can find HERE, but I felt it was worth repeating since so many periodicals have been talking about it this week.

There has been a release of more data that shows harnessing the flow of rivers and the ocean, we can generate electricity on a level that could power the homes of many billions of people.

Systems could be sited on river beds or suspended in the ocean. The scientists behind the technology, which has been developed in research funded by the US government, say that generating power in this way would potentially cost only around 3.5p per kilowatt hour, compared to about 4.5p for wind energy and between 10p and 31p for solar power. They say the technology would require up to 50 times less ocean acreage than wave power generation.

I think that this news continues to be very promising. But, I am also at the point where I am tired of the talk and want more action. So, let’s start seeing these revolutionary devices built and creating electricity and the levels they are expecting.

You can find the latest article, HERE, via The Telegraph

hometown makes me happy

Wooooo Hooooo for Pasadena!

Seriously, this makes me so darn happy for my home town. Especially, since they are so bad in other legislative areas…. THIS is good news.

Pasadena Star News is reporting that their energy is going all green and stuff.

“The City Council voted Monday to sign a 20-year contract to buy an annual allotment of 30,000 megawatt hours of power generated by methane gas emitted by garbage decaying in the landfill. “

There is also THIS follow-up on the author’s blog.