Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.
The city council in Minneapolis MN has adopted an ordinance to prohibit automobiles from idling for more than three minutes. The measure is aimed at reducing atmospheric pollution, but should also be welcomed by anyone who wants to save money, given the currently escalating cost of fuel.
By Rod Adams •
June 10, 2008
It has been darned hot on the East Coast, and the electric companies have been asking their customers to conserve power whenever possible, especially in the heat of the day. Each day this week one of the topics of conversation in my carpool has been the oppressive heat and poor air quality.
The power conservation warnings and the “Code Red” air quality alerts made me think about last week’s announcement by Unistar Nuclear, a partnership between Constellation Energy, Areva, Bechtel, and EDF, that they had successfully filed their combined Construction and Operating License (COL) application for a third unit at Calvert Cliffs.
The plant is not exactly in my backyard, but it is only about an hour’s drive south of my home. Though watching and waiting for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to issue a new nuclear plant license to allow the beginning of construction can be a bit like watching grass grow, the decision to “docket” the application indicates that real progress continues.
If you want to read an article that provides an indication of how the idea of the plant plays to local politicians I recommend a visit to a Washington Post article titled Coalition Formed to Advocate For New Power Plants, Lines.
Truck stop electrification is boosting fuel efficiency and minimizing dependence on foreign oil from idling trucks
There are 1.3 million long-haul diesel trucks with sleeper cabs in the United States, with most drivers averaging over 100,000 miles annually. These trucks are highly affected by skyrocketing fuel prices and are dependent on foreign oil. As the value of the dollar diminishes, transportation costs are partly to blame.
Idling Trucks Waste Fuel
Truck drivers are required to rest for 10 hours for every 11 hours of driving. A large amount of fuel is consumed when drivers leave trucks idling to maintain comfort. 85% of the energy is wasted sleeper cabs are heated by an idling truck. It is even more inefficient to cool the sleeper cab, wasting 94% of the fuel’s energy.
300 garbage collection trucks in California will soon be fueled by the same trash that they haul. Landfill gas will be purified and liquefied, producing up to 13,000 gallons of liquefied natural gas (LNG) daily.
This facility at Waste Management’s (WMI: NYSE) Altamont Landfill in Livermore, California will begin operation in 2009. It comes with a price tag of $15.5 million, with grants providing $1.4 million.
Cleaner Fuel
Waste Management is the largest waste management company in North America and operates the largest US fleet of heavy-duty collection trucks. The company has a goal to reduce fleet emissions by 15% by 2020.

The average Chicagoan spends an hour and a half commuting to and from work each day. With the second largest public transportation system in the country, one million people ride city buses each day. Mayor Daley considered both facts when he devised a plan aimed at easing congestion, commuting times, and air pollution in the central business district. A $153 million federal grant can help make this plan a reality.
Priority Given to Buses Over Cars
The first part of the plan entails creating a 100 mile bus corridor with dedicated bus lanes during peak hours. Kiosks selling bus tickets allow passengers to quickly board buses and many routes will run express, resulting in fewer stops. Traffic lights will be programmed to turn green for buses, helping to keep them in motion. Hybrid buses will be used, reducing pollution in these heavily populated areas.

Today’s topic is inspired by Solar Today magazine. “Scrubbing Carbon from the Breeze” was written by Rona Fried, Ph.D., president of SustainableBusiness.com in the May/June 2008 issue. Unfortunately this particular article is not available online.
As climate change become a more central issue for people and governments around the globe, a lot of people are looking for solutions - fast solutions. If there were a quick and inexpensive way to dramatically reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we should go for it right? Well a number of “quick fix” solutions, which have centered around hacking the environment to fight climate change, have been floating around for years. One strategy is to capture the CO2 with plankton and bury it in the ocean (which is much easier and cheaper than pumping it into the ground). Another is to change the composition of our atmosphere to reflect sunlight. Others tend to be more sci-fi and outlandish - but all of them might just turn out to be disastrous.
By Carol Gulyas •
April 23, 2008
I had read in Grist on April 15 that Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway had cancelled six proposed coal plants, but now it seems that opposition to building new coal plants is spreading, among Wall Street investors and the American public. Back in August 2007, 1600 Utahans signed a petition asking Buffett to cut Rocky Mountain Power’s dependence on coal, with the added message that Utahans want their utilities to investigate cleaner energy sources.
The most recent issue of Solar Today includes an article by Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute about the public outcry all across American which, in addition to the cost of the plants, has led to the cancellation of hundreds of coal plant construction projects. And a survey conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation, published yesterday, shows that “79% of respondents would prefer to try and meet demand through greater energy-efficiency and conservation before building more coal-fired plants. Only 19% say they disagree.” With that kind of public opposition, it’s not surprising that Wall Street is cooling on coal plants, too.
By Keith Rockmael •
April 18, 2008
Restaurants here in San Francisco open, and close, almost as often as the fog rolls in so we don’t usually pay an extreme amount of our precious attention to another restaurant du jour. Mixt Greens recently opened but they don’t qualify for new kid on the block status nonetheless they do deserve green props. Thus I direct my attention to their third installment of the Mixt Greens empire.
This third location, located in SoMa, just opened and used zero-VOC paints to improve the air quality, and I could definitely smell the food and not the fumes. They even used recycled paint to cover their ceiling. I didn’t find any bamboo or cork for the flooring but something better as they used an unfinished concrete floor with 50% flyash content. That high flyash content along with the fact that the floor will last a long time (plus it’s easy to clean) makes that choice a no-brainer.

Despite all the talk about solar energy, it only generates a measly .1% of electricity in the US. Meanwhile, national demand for electricity is growing by 2% annually. Considering that solar technology has been in use for decades, why is it not more widespread?
Cheap Fossil Fuels
Even though sunlight is free, fossil fuels in the US have been widely available at a very low cost. There are extensive coal fields all across the country. Nationally, coal produces about 50% of our electricity, with a majority of it being used for base load. That means that coal plants produce a steady stream of electricity a majority of the time.
Natural gas however has skyrocketed in price over the last 6 years. It is widely used to generate electricity during peak times, typically on warmer days when we are cranking up the air conditioning. Natural gas plants can start up quickly and come to the rescue when needed, but the cost of fuel has gotten quite high recently.
Solar energy is very capable of producing peak electricity and is ideally suited for for it. Solar radiation is what causes us to need air conditioning in the first place. The utility companies have started taking notice of solar energy’s potential to generate electricity during peak demand.

The chemical perchloroethylene (or “perc”) might not ring a bell, but it is likely be found in your home. Considered by the EPA to be both a health and environmental hazard, it is a solvent used by most dry cleaners across the country for more than 70 years. It is shown to cause liver cancer and can even harm the central nervous system in lab animals.
When clothes are cleaned with perc, they will actually off-gas this substance into the air. It most commonly enters the body through the air, but can also be absorbed through the skin or found in drinking water.
“When you go and pick up that bag and bring it home, you still have perchloroethylene off-gassing or coming off the clothes,” said Melanie Marty of the California EPA. “You don’t want something in widespread use that’s been shown to be a carcinogen.”
Is it necessary to use toxic chemicals to get our clothes “clean”? Before you get too depressed, let’s examine some solutions.