Green Options » Energy

Who is Rod Adams? Environmentalist, Humanitarian…Nuke?

Rod Adams — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:53:27 +0000

I am a nuke. There, I got that out into the open. I am also an environmentalist in the sense that I care very deeply about the planet that we all share, want to use it resources wisely so that many future generations can also enjoy it and believe that humans have the power to make the world essentially uninhabitable. I do not have faith in humans, but I do understand that they can be incredibly good, incredibly bad and are generally somewhere in between on the spectrum.

“Belief” and faith are also not words that I apply to our inventions or creations. Some of them are good and beautiful and some that share many of the same basic building blocks are ugly or useful only for evil purposes. Our job as people who want to live on a clean planet and to share the joy in doing so is to think, evaluate and choose, not to “believe”. We should not accept other people’s lists of dogmas at face value; there are many people in the world who are not particularly upfront about their agendas when they suggest that we make certain important choice.

Whenever I hear someone tell me that I need to spend my money a certain way, I am immediately suspicious. In my 48 years on the planet, I have often found that those people have sales or marketing jobs and are looking for a way to “close a deal” even if they have to resort to scaring their potential customers.

Back to the nuke thing. I spent about 5 and a half years in an intensive environmental learning environment where I worked my way up to a position where I was the guy in charge of most of the systems that kept a crew of 150 people breathing clean air, drinking clean water, carefully compacting and disposing our trash, and moving about the world’s oceans without leaving any discernable traces. That time as an engineering officer on submarines taught me many things about cause and effect, about using real math to make difficult choices and about the fact that atomic fission is a beautiful natural phenomenon that produces massive amounts of controllable heat without releasing any noxious emissions.

My boat had an emergency diesel engine and a large storage battery, so I learned quite a bit about the limitations and disadvantages some of the competition. In another part of my life, I have been a real sailor who had to spend a lot of exhausting hours on the open ocean waiting for a gentle breeze so that I could make progress towards a destination so I learned first hand about the beauty and inescapable limitations of wind power.

What I hope to be able to do as a contributor to CleanTechnia is to engage in conversations with people that really want to make a measurable difference in the world’s environment and share what I have learned about some very powerful tools. I also want to share what I have learned about how to recognize the difference between a real solution to a problem and a sales pitch from someone who simply wants to find a “forcing function” that will help him to persuade me to part with my hard earned money.

Please participate in the conversation - I may sometimes come off as a know it all, but I honestly love to learn and enjoy being convinced to change my mind. I will warn you, however, that appeals to authorities who have earned their reputation though the use of shady computational skills will not be very convincing.

Obama: Blame the Iraq War for Lack of US Climate Change Leadership

Jennifer Lance — Wed, 14 May 2008 13:01:04 +0000

Oh, I admit it; I’ve fallen hard for Obama. Perhaps it is his handsome face or eloquent manner of speech, or perhaps it is because he is the first viable candidate (sorry Kucinich and Nader) to speak the truth. First, Obama opposed the gas tax holiday, designed to distract Americans from the bigger picture of our energy usage. Now, he is blaming the Iraq war for America’s utter failure as a climate leader.

Shortly after last week’s primaries, Obama stated:

I think the way we have run this war in Iraq has lessened our ability to move our allies. It has led us to ignore the critical needs for us to focus on a sound energy policy in this country. It has left us unable to lead on critical global issues like global warming. And it has led us to neglect what ultimately is the most important thing to keeping America safe, and that is having an economy that is the envy of the world and that gives us the resources and the power to project ourselves around the world.

I couldn’t agree more. Not only is the Iraq War being fought over false pretenses, but it has strained the US budget and distracted Americans from the greatest threat to national security: climate change. Many lives have been lost in Iraq, although Americans have been largely shielded from the realities of this war by the media. The media will not be able to shield Americans from the increasing effects of climate change.

Of course, Obama is not perfect when it comes to energy policies. In 2007, he reintroduced the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007, which supported research and plant construction in order to convert coal into diesel engine fuel. This is not the right climate solution to lessen our foreign oil dependency. Considering that “Illinois basin coal has more untapped energy potential than the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined“, is Obama supporting liquid coal fuel for political reasons?

This presidential race is not about race or gender. This race is about climate change, and which candidate will lead America to become an environmental role model in the world. As Obama stated in his interview on CNN, “…if the United States regains its — its sense of who it is and our values and our ideals, that we will continue to set the tone for creating a more peaceful and more prosperous world.”

Image: Flickr-Barack Obama

What Do I WIMBY (Want In My Backyard)?

Shirley Siluk Gregory — Tue, 13 May 2008 21:12:31 +0000

No matter what new energy proposal someone makes, it’s bound to attract an outcry of NIMBYs (Not In My Backyard). (My recent post about the U.S. generating all the energy it needed via a 100-mile-by-100-mile solar installation in the Mojave Desert, for example, evoked some protest.)

So I thought it might help to pose the future-of-our-energy question in another way: What do I WIMBY? (As in, Want In My Backyard?)

OK, here we go: Following are photos illustrating several clean and/or renewable energy options that could help us curb greenhouse gas emissions and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Which ones would you be willing to view from your backyard as a tradeoff for a cleaner, brighter future? Be honest now: I’m asking literally if you would say OK if one of these was what you saw when looking out of the window of your home.

Is it Nuclear Power?

Image credit: Anna Gomez at Wikimedia Commons, released into public domain.

Concentrated Solar Power?

Image credit: Sandia National Laboratory at Wikimedia Commons, released into public domain.

Distributed Solar Power?

Image credit: Downtowngal at Wikimedia Commons, under a Creative Commons license.

Wind Power?

Image credit: Dirk Ingo Franke at Wikimedia Commons, under a GNU Free Documentation license.

Hydroelectric Power?

Image credit: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation at Wikimedia Commons, released into public domain.

Tidal Power?

Image credit: TidalStream Partners at Wikimedia Commons, under a GNU Free Documentation license.

Or Geothermal Power?

Image credit: Gretar Ívarsson at Wikimedia Commons, released into the public domain.

I’ll be the first to answer: I’d have to say distributed solar (rooftop panels) and tidal. Honestly, I’d find all the others unsightly when viewed from my home. (Though I have to acknowledge that’s clearly selfish: if it’s a choice between saving the Earth — and civilization — from the effects of catastrophic climate change, I’d take any of the above.)

Of course, by the time any of us really has to make that choice, it’ll be too late to stave off a climate catastrophe. That’s the problem with NIMBYism.

GreenBuildingTalk: Solar Hot Water and Heating — Is it Right for You?

Jeff McIntire-Strasburg — Tue, 13 May 2008 20:30:54 +0000

Editor’s note: Today, we’re pleased to start a content partnership with GreenBuildingTalk, “the place to share, ask, and learn about green building products and methods.” The site’s forums are both active and informative, and they’ve now started blogging. Today’s post on solar hot water was originally published on May 5, 2008.

Each week, the Chicago Architecture Foundation and Chicago Green Technology Center graciously host “lunch time seminars,” inviting some of the leading industry professionals to discuss building issues they are involved with. On 5/1/08, they hosted Joe Gordon’s “Solar Hot Water and Heating- Is It Right for You?” presentation. The seminar provided the audience with information on how solar thermal works, how much space you’ll need, incentives, and how to determine cost benefits. Mr. Gordon also discussed how the cost of solar hot water and heating will likely keep increasing, due to the high cost of copper that is used in these systems.

Joe Gordon has worked for Solar Service, Inc. for over four years and has fielded thousands of inquires from developers, architects, owners and institutions about whether solar hot water and heating would work for them. Visit Solar Service’s gallery to see unique ways panels can be installed.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/jZ6JkmGKTzc" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

To view the rest of Joe Gordon’s presentation, visit the blog at GreenBuildingTalk.

Let’s Talk About the ‘C’ Word

Shirley Siluk Gregory — Sun, 11 May 2008 16:22:36 +0000

Of all the solutions to climate change, dwindling resources and a degraded natural environment, one consistently seems to have all the appeal of a dirty word.

It’s the “c” word. As in “conservation.”

Now, I appreciate all the diligent researchers and inventors working so hard to create the ultimate “green” bullet, whether it’s a never-exhausting source of clean energy, cheap and printable solar panels you can put anywhere, energy from garbage or carbon-dioxide-based plastics. But unless one of these near-magic solutions can enter the mass market in the next couple of years, we’re not going to make an appreciable dent in our resource and energy demands before the proverbial dirty word starts hitting the fan.

And that’s why conservation needs to become a much bigger part of the global environment discussion, and soon. Because that’s the one strategy that can start having a meaningful impact immediately. Not in five years. Not next year. Not even tomorrow. Now.

The recent blowback from the rush to biofuels is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. As reported in a story on National Public Radio, European Union scientists have checked the latest numbers on biofuels and have concluded that growing energy is not the way to go. They’re calling for an immediate halt in the EU’s crop-to-energy battle plan.

That’s not what a lot of politicians want to be hearing, though. For instance, when anti-biofuel protesters confronted one European official in the NPR report, he responded petulantly, “What’s your solution?”

Another protester had an eloquent response: “We have to start using less energy now,” he said.

Conservation. Let’s start seeing some multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for that.

Sustainable Sips

Courtney Carlisle — Sat, 10 May 2008 00:51:40 +0000

No doubt about it, I have my vices. Addiction to coffee seems to be genetic in my family, and so, really, there isn’t anything I can do about it other than try to drink responsibly. Aside from buying organic and fair trade coffee, what you drink out of is as important as what you drink.

I was very excited to see the new Sustain recycled and recyclable mugs from Aladdin. Made from eCycle, a new food-grade safe plastic that is recycled, it can also be dropped in any recycling bin at the end of it’s life cycle. At $9.99, I consider it a bargain, especially when the coffee itself is $5.00.

The real benefit is that by using this eCycle technology to make their tumblers, the company is: using 2/3 of the energy they would if they made the same product from “virgin” plastics; saving oil (which we should all be thankful for since one ton of recycled plastic saves 685 gallons of oil according to the EPA), and they are helping “close the loop” by using something that is not only recycled but can be reused again. It almost sounds redundant.

This is an example that warrants re-purposing and recycling for other products.



First 100% Off-Grid Green Building in San Francisco
Keith Rockmael — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:23:55 +0000
In San Francisco, some well financed and publicized condo projects like the Arterra spend big marketing dollars to push its LEED – NC status (wonder why they didn’t shoot for LEED on its other project the Hayes?) while the EcoCenter at Heron’s Head Park LEED certified facility opened in relative obscurity.
This landmark youth education facility and environmental center sits smack in the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood right next to the former PG & E power plant. Of all the areas in SF this area truly needs the Green building support. We’re psyched to report that the EcoCenter marks the first 100% off-grid green building in San Francisco, and boasts features that set the bar high for green building.
Some of the condo and office developers should take a look at this baby with its solar panels and a wind tribune that will meet all electricity demands of the building, not to mention the wastewater treatment system that utilizes a series of wetland cells and ultraviolet sterilization lamps to treat wastewater and recycle treated water for landscape irrigation, as well as the Green living roof that will reduce building needs for heating and cooling, provide retention of storm water on site for reuse, and encourage wildlife habitat.
Those of you more into the engineering will appreciate the Structurally Insulated Panels (SIPs) that will provide high-energy efficiency and strength in the walls and roof as well as seismic support and fire resistance. We couldn’t be happier to see how they used native landscaping (what no lawn?) to conserve water, eliminate synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and encourage education around native plant propagation. Really, is that so hard?
The EcoCenter, designed by Toby Long Design and Clever Homes, and built by the LORAX Development team, came to fruition with funding by various grants from SF Environment, the Coastal Conservancy, and numerous foundations, including the Stewardship Council, the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund, the Live Oak Fund of Horizons Foundation, Mitchell Kapor Foundation, Walter & Elise Haas Fund and Flora Family Foundation.
Even more impressive than the grant list or the green building attributes remains the fact that it will bring Green awareness to an area sorely lacking in education about the environment. Visitors and local youth can learn about clean air and water, safe energy, healthy food, non-toxic homes and schools, open space restoration, and equitable education and employment.
Now that’s something to publicize.



South Korean Solar System Community on Jeju Island a Brilliant Idea
Gavin Hudson — Fri, 09 May 2008 14:22:34 +0000

Solar System Powers Donggwang Green Village on Semi-Tropical Jeju Island
Donggwang is on the western half of Jeju-do, the largest of South Korea’s semi-tropical southern islands. Near the village, Halla Mountain, a volcano and the tallest mountain in South Korea, rises from the island’s center amidst a patchwork of small farms.
Donggwang has achieved what even the most powerful countries in the world are still struggling to accomplish: total energy independence with clean technology.

On the roof of each of the 40 houses in Donggwang lies a large beds of solar panels. Even the small, local elementary school runs on free electric energy from the sun. The photovoltaic panels produce enough energy to power the entire area. Amidst cattle and fields, Donggwang is a state-of-the-art renewable energy village.
I spoke with Choo Chan Lee, who lives in Donggwang. Mr. Lee, a Seoul native, retired to Donggwang green village after operating a successful grocery store in New York for many years. He and his wife invited my in for tea to talk about the solar system and their life in Donggwang.
“Dongwang is a solar town,” Mr. Lee says. “[The solar systems] are a lot of help for us. Mine is 2.1 kW.”
In 2004, the government helped to install solar systems in Donggwang, paying 70% of the installation fees.
“They told us this is your town,” recalls Mr. Lee. “Do you wand them or not? We said that we would like them.”
When asked whether he is concerned about environmental issues, Mr. Lee replies casually, “Yeah, the environment is a very important issue. In Jeju we don’t have many factories, so the air is very nice. Very nice environment. The motto is a clean city - clean island. They’re trying to do this solar and then the windmills. My favorite part of living in Jeju is the fresh air. The clean air.”
More Posts on Solar Power:

How Solar Panels Could Power 90% of US Transportation
Solar Thermal Electricity: Can it Replace Coal, Gas, and Oil?
Solar Energy Could Power U.S. Many Times Over

Photo credit (top, above): Gavin Hudson, EcoWorldly



How Marin Can Dramatically Boost Renewable Energy And Save Money
The Dave Room — Thu, 08 May 2008 21:57:27 +0000
In 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law Executive Order S-3-05 which sets a long term greenhouse gas emission reduction target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Reaching this ambitious target will require that California embark on a comprehensive strategy to make aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions over the next four decades.



Nationwide, electricity generation is is the second largest contributor to greenhouse gases.  It is incomprehensible how the 80% greenhouse gas reduction target could be reached without tremendous amounts of renewable energy and energy efficiency.  I am not saying that greenhouse gas reductions and renewable energy are the same but they certainly are not apples and oranges.  I’d say they are more like oranges and tangelos.  If we want significant greenhouse gas emissions, we’re going to need to ramp up renewable energy and quick.



And nowhere better to start than Marin County - the richest county, in the richest region, in the richest state, in the richest country in the world. If Marin can’t transition to clean local renewable energy, how can we expect the rest of the nation much less the rest of the world to do so.  
Fortunately, Marin Clean Energy has a plan called Community Choice Energy. MCE plans to form a Joint Powers Authority for cities and counties to pool the electricity dollars and take over the procurement of power as well as begin building local renewable energy capacity.  Their Community Choice Energy plan calls for 50% renewable energy by 2014 and eventually 100% subject to operational and economic constraints.  Continuing with the status quo, Marin is likely to get 30-60 MW of renewable energy or enough electricity for about 15-30k homes in the next 15 years.  With Community Choice, Marin is likely to get 120-225 MW or enough electricity for 60-122k homes in the next 15 years.  That’s 300% higher with Community Choice. 
Recently, Supervisor Charles McGlashan spoke at press conference about MCE’s plan to dramatically boost renewable energy in the Marin: 
We have an arduous journey ahead of us to make sure that we provide the accurate background and detailed information to our colleagues on every single city council in Marin County.  If you may know the background, the Community Choice Aggregation law passed in ‘02 enables your local government to aggregate you into a completely new paradigm of managing and generating your electricity. And frankly one of the things that I like about the policy is that moves one of the core basic goods of our society - our energy production - back from corporate monopolies and buildings far far away into local backyard, our local board rooms, and our local communities.  And that has a few very important benefits that i am personally very intrigued with.  first of all it keeps a significant amount of revenue available for reinvestment in our own communities so that we can be paying our local green businesses to generate some of our local electricity in our own county.  thats great for job creation, its good for low income job opportunities, for people who need jobs, its good for the electrical trades, and its a boost for a our local economy. 
With that comes a more democratic process where community members themselves can talk to their local leaders and decide what kind of energy future do we really want.  i think right now in the Rose Garden at the White House President Bush is offering another very tepid climate change initiative that might stop the rate of increase of greenhouse gases some time in the next quarter century. And one of the problems that we have at the local level is we keep waiting for national or state leadership that continues to fail to materialize.
So what Marin Clean Energy promises to do is bring back the community choice, the community direction of how we build our energy future together and brings that  control to us locally. And some of the upsides, in addition to the job growth, include 350,000 tons a year of avoided CO2 emissions.  There’s absolutely nothing we can do at the local level that is more compelling than that. Thats an overall 15-17% reduction in our CO2 emissions below 1990 levels. Theres nothing we can do next year that will come close to that potential.
Over the last five years, as supervisor Brown will mention, we have conducted very arduous homework on the risks and the bonds capabilities, the legal issues involved with forming this. And I am happy to say  that the materials we are presenting to our city council colleagues have explored every single one of those risks.  And frankly in my view those risks are lower than doing nothing. If we stay and do nothing, we could be subject to the wild fluctuations of natural gas prices, coal burning for electricity, and even the huge reinvestment in the nuclear power plant plants that others claim is green energy.
And so we’re girding for a very intense debate back and forth with a lot of misinformation and assertions made on the other side I believe, and I want to ask the public to do some very hard homework. We have a very detailed set of information for the city council members and their staffs.  And nows the time to dig deep and do some very serious homework. In my view, this may be the most important public policy issue that we investigate in the entire decade. Its a huge potential leg up on local renewable power with local economic benefits. And have to now, sit down, get serious and do some very hard analysis to make sure this provides the promise that so far we think it does. Thank you very much.

Hear the audio.
See also the Local Clean Energy Alliance site for information on the Community Choice Energy effort in the East Bay.



Low Impact Living: Green Your Kitchen
Low Impact Living — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:17:45 +0000
Editor’s note: Thinking about a kitchen remodel? This week, Low Impact Living takes a look at every element of kitchen use, and how you can both make the space more efficient, more livable, and more earth-friendly. This post was originally published on September 7, 2007. 
You may not know it, but your kitchen is one of the biggest resource hogs in your house. You use electricity and natural gas for your appliances. You use water in your sink and dish washer. Your fridge is stocked with foods grown and transported from all over the world that require chemicals, water and fuel to be produced and transported. And then there’s the non-recyclable packaging that goes straight to a landfill.
Here is a list of things you can do in your kitchen to lower your environmental impact, and also to live in a healthier home. We have recommendations for appliances, products and new behaviors.

Any chance you are planning a kitchen remodel? We also have great recommendations for you– wonderful new materials for countertops,cabinets and floors, leads on top-rated green architects and interior designers, and more. Just scroll down if you’re focused on a remodel.
Get Green in the Kitchen
1. Use energy-saving appliances. You can greatly reduce your power and water usage and your greenhouse gas production by using Energy Star appliances. Energy Star appliances can save as much as 50% of your energy and water use, and can cut your carbon footprint by 1000+ pounds, compared to standard appliances. Click here to see Energy Star models.
2. Use compact fluorescent lighting. Compact fluorescent lights use 1/4 the energy and last up to 10 times as long as standard bulbs. And they come in versions that are dimmable, recessed-ready, and daylight spectrum–any version of light type you can think of. Each high-use bulb you replace will save up to $10 and 100 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, and they last for many years. Click here to see our wide range of CF lighting options.
3. Recycle and Re-use. Can you rinse that ziplock and use it again? Can you reuse the containers you got from take-out? And don’t get plastic bags every time you go to the store for groceries– take durable reusable sacks with you. Click here for reusable grocery bags..
4. Eat Organic, Eat Local. Not only is eating organic healthy for you and your family, but it keeps chemicals from running off into our oceans and rivers from non-organic farms. Eating food sourced locally–like from farmers’ markets– means tons of carbon dioxide are not released into the atmosphere in the process of transporting food to you. To learn more about eating organic,see our selection of great books on organic food and cooking. Also, you can find a farmer’s market near you to get delicious, organic, locally-grown foods.
5. Get green cleaners. Each time you spray a standard cleaner on your counter you breathe in a fine mist of harmful chemicals. Use non-toxic, organic dish soap, detergent and cleaners to protect yourself and your family. See our selection of green cleaners.
6. Compost. Don’t throw out those coffee grounds and banana peels– save landfill space and make your own rich potting soil using a composter. It’s easy! And there’s even a model that works right in your kitchen. Find the composter that’s right for you.
7. Only run your dishwasher when you have a full load. It takes the same amount of energy to run a full or a half load– so wait another day and fill up that machine. Also, remember that washing dishes or pots by hand takes more water than doing them in the washer– so go ahead and put them in the machine.
Remodel Your Kitchen the Great Green Way– it’s healthy, sustainable and gorgeous!
If you remodel a kitchen the “normal way” you’d likely use some combination of new woods for cabinets, marble or tile for countertops, and perhaps some new tile or wood flooring. These standard materials consume resources and contain many toxic chemicals. Fortunately there is a very different way to design and build your new dream kitchen– a way that is sustainable, healthy and jaw-dropping gorgeous. We’ll show you how.
First you should find an architect or an interior designer who is skilled in working with sustainable materials and knows how to build in an eco-friendly manner. Use our nationwide listing of green architects and interior designers to find a great one near you.
Now let’s focus on materials you should consider. Let’s talk about countertops.

Terrazzo is so beautiful you will not believe it is sustainable. Terrazzo consists of recycled glass and crushed stone held together by cement or epoxy. It is buffed to give it a smooth finish. Terrazzo is low maintenance, long-lasting, and has high recycled content. Recycled materials can make up as much as 95 percent of the materials in terrazzo. Terrazzo from EnviroGlas(pictured at right) and Icestone are particularly good for their high recycled content.
“Paper Stone” is another great countertop option. Comprised of paper and other fiber suspended in resin, these materials look surprisingly like stone and come in a variety of exciting colors. The material is heat resistant and very durable. It is also easy to maintain with a nonabrasive cleaner and a cloth. PaperStone and Richlite are two of the more well-known brands. Richlite (pictured at below) uses pulp from sustainably managed forests, and PaperStone incorporates up to 100 percent recycled paper pulp.

On to kitchen cabinets.
Everyone automatically thinks “new cabinets” when they start to plan a kitchen remodel. But cabinets are often made from wood harvested unsustainably and saturated with chemicals used in sealing, gluing, and painting. Many of the chemicals used can be cancer-causing and can offgas into your home for years. Fortunately there are some great, safe alternatives.
First, save whatever parts of your existing cabinets that are still servicable. Are the shelves okay but the fronts have to go? Already, you’ve saved a lot of wood and money. For the new cabinet elements, you can use reclaimed wood, or formaldehyde-free pressed fiberboard. Or you can even get cabinets made from compressed plant material (such as wheatboard).
For the best in wood cabinets, you want to find ones that use either reclaimed wood or FSC-certified wood (FSC stands for Forest Stewardship Council–www.fscus.org– and they assure that wood is grown and harvested in a sustainable manner). For reclaimed wood, you can turn to several companies that make cabinets using salvaged wood. CitiLogs uses reclaimed wood and custom milling to produce beautiful products. A company that will sell you reclaimed cabinet-grade wood is Elmwood Reclaimed Lumber.

You can also go the “new but sustainable route” with cabinets. AlterECO manufactures cabinets out of bamboo (a fast-growing grass) and wheat board. (Pictured at right.) Check out AlterECO’s cabinet selection here. Another great supplier is Breathe Easy. Breathe Easy cabinets are made using bamboo, FSC Certified plywood and/or wheatboard (all formaldehyde free). Both companies offer low- or no-VOC finishes. Also check out Kirei board, which makes panels out of the pressed stalks of harvested Chinese sorghum. Visit www.kireiusa.com.
You also have some great flooring options.
Marmoleum is not your grandma’s linoleum. (Pictured at left.) It is made of linseed oil, rosins, and wood flour, affixed to a natural jute backing. It is durable, comfortable to walk on and comes in a mind-blowing array of colors and patterns. To learn more about Marmoleum and find a dealer near you, please click here.
Another great sustainable flooring option is bamboo. Bamboo is a fast-growing grass and is very renewable, durable and attractive. We recommend Teragren bamboo flooring, a company whose mission is to help reduce our dependence on dwindling timber resources by manufacturing flooring, stairs, and panels from bamboo sustainably harvested in the Zhejiang Province of China. Click here to find a Teragren supplier near you.
Also have a look at these amazing tiles made out of recycled rubber– they come in blue, gray, shades of orange, and many other colors. They are both durable and springy, which means they’re easy on your knees. Visit www.ecosurfaces.com to see samples.
Lighting is also critical
Why not use some skylights or solar tubes? Natural light is best for your health and for the environment. If you do need electric lights, there are many great recessed, track and decorative light fixtures that work great with compact fluorescent bulbs. You’ll save a lot of power and money going this route.
Last but not least, don’t forget about appliances. We’ve already mentioned them in the section above, but don’t forget that appliances will consumer energy for as long as they are in your kitchen, so make the right choices from the start and buy Energy Star appliances.
Thanks for learning how to green your kitchen. Please make sure to check out our new Green Products Ratings & Reviews on main site at www.lowimpactliving.com where we’re adding new and exciting features every day!



Part 2: There Are Good and Bad Biofuels
Erica Rowell — Thu, 08 May 2008 15:24:33 +0000
Today’s post is by Dr. Bill Chameides, dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and lead author of the forthcoming blog The Green Grok. This is the second post in a 2-part series on biofuels.
Last week’s topic was why corn ethanol is an environmental loser.
But are all biofuels losers? No. Some can be winners. One of those is called cellulosic ethanol.
What Is Cellulosic Ethanol?
All ethanol — whether it is corn or cellulosic — is the same chemical compound: C2H5OH.  You might recall from elementary chemistry courses that the “OH” group at the end of the formula indicates that the compound is an “alcohol.” Alcohols can have varying numbers of carbon atoms. Alcohol with two carbon atoms is called “ethanol.” The other alcohols are generally too toxic to be ingested, and thus ethanol has been the libation of choice down through the ages. (Ethanol used as fuel is rendered nonpotable.)
So corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol don’t signify different types of ethanol, but rather the different material (or feedstocks) used to produce them.


Why Cellulosic Ethanol Can Be an Environmental Winner
Corn ethanol is produced from kernels — actually only a small part of the corn kernels — the sugars and starches. Herein lies one of the limitations of corn ethanol. You see, sugars and starches comprise a tiny fraction of the corn plant’s mass — about 2-15%. Because only a small fraction of a plant is used to make corn ethanol, the amount you can produce is limited.
Cellulosic ethanol is a different story. Most of the dry biomass — as much as 80% — is typically made up of cellulosic material — the stuff that makes the plant sturdy. So you can make a lot of ethanol using a plant’s cellulose instead of its sugars and starches. (By the way, even if the cellulosic material comes from corn, we still call it “cellulosic ethanol.” Corn ethanol is made solely from the sugars and starches of the corn kernel.)
The Major Advantage of Cellulosic Ethanol
Our guts are unable to digest cellulose, so we typically throw away that part of crops.  A lot of it is left on the field or disposed of as agricultural waste. For corn, the cellulosic material includes the corn stover — the leaves and stalk — and the cob.
Remember what made corn ethanol such an environmental negative? A main reason is that it requires that land being used to grow food (or left as forests or grassland) be converted to growing an energy crop. And that leads to lots of global warming pollution.
This is not a problem for cellulosic ethanol — we can simply use the agricultural waste from food crops to make the ethanol and thereby avoid all those emissions.
Why We Can’t Fill Our Tanks With the Cellulosic Stuff … Yet
Unfortunately, right now, producing cellulosic ethanol on an industrial scale is too expensive. Unlike converting a plant’s sugars and starches to corn ethanol, making cellulosic ethanol requires that we first break down the cellulosic material. But because this material is what makes a plant sturdy, the atoms in these compounds are strongly bonded together and that makes them hard to break apart. The processes we have available today to do this are too expensive to make cellulosic ethanol commercially competitive.
But that will likely change. Scientists and engineers are working to make a commercially viable form of cellulosic ethanol. Some are developing new chemical processes; others are trying to genetically engineer new microbes that can “ferment” cellulose into ethanol like normal microbes that ferment sugars into ethanol. (The U.S.Department of Energy is helping fund six biorefineries.)
Cellulosic Ethanol Could Help Cut U.S. Global Warming Pollution
By my own estimates, agricultural and forest wastes could supply as much as 35 billion gallons of ethanol per year, saving up to 76 megatons of global warming emissions per year. (These results are somewhat larger than but consistent with other recent estimates (e.g., see Smith et al. 2004).) Such savings would cut a little less than 5% of all our heat-trapping pollution and about 15% of the emissions from the transportation sector.
By mid-century, cellulosic ethanol could supply as much as 86 billion gallons of ethanol, saving a little more than 180 megatons of global warming pollution per year — or almost 12% of America’s total global warming pollution and about 35% of the emissions from the transportation sector.
These are significant numbers. But to reach such levels we would need to grow bioenergy crops such as switch grass. Such cultivation, in turn, would require converting lands for this purpose, and that could raise some of the problems discussed in last week’s post.
The Bottom Line of Biofuels: There Are Winners and Losers
The saying “waste not, want not” applies to biofuels. The best biofuels are made from agricultural or forests wastes or from plants cultivated on degraded or marginal lands. The product from such feedstocks — cellulosic ethanol — is where we should be directing our entrepreneurial energies.
Read more about Dr. Bill Chameides, Dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University.
See also:
CleanTechnica: Gene from Cow’s Stomach Engineered to Create More Affordable Biofuel
Gas 2.0: Mascoma Update — Cellulosic Ethanol Company Adds $10 Million From Marathon Oil
CleanTechnica: First Sustainable Ethanol to Mass Market?



Heating Your Home: Heat 101
Chris Schille — Wed, 07 May 2008 04:59:32 +0000
Author’s note: The following article on home heating is the second in an eight-part series.
What is Heat Exactly?

If we’re going to talk about better ways to heat a home, we’d better have some idea of what heat is. What you experience as heat is just the energization of the molecules in your body. Heat is the energy that gives those molecules kinetic (vibratory) energy.
Obviously, your body produces its own heat through the metabolic process (burning calories); the important thing is that your environment neither inundates you with excess energy (when it’s too warm), or draws too much energy away from you (when it’s too cold). This begs the question, how does your environment give or take energy from you?
Physicists and engineers call the process heat transfer. There are three different mechanisms: radiation, conduction, and convection. Radiation is what you feel when you stand in front of a fireplace or in sunlight. Electromagnetic waves, primarily in the infrared portion of the light spectrum, strike you and transfer their energy. Conduction is how a coffee cup warms your hand: the kinetic (vibratory) energy of the coffee mug creates a resonance with your molecules, transferring energy. Convection heats by moving a warm fluid (typically air) across a cooler surface (you). In each case, the warmer object loses energy to the cooler one.
Another way of looking at heat transfer explains cooling in terms of heating: if you decide something is too warm, you cool it by finding something colder and facilitating heat transfer between the two. Strangely enough, for substances like gases (say, air), you can apply mechanical energy to drive this flow of energy. When you compress a gas, you raise its temperature; now the heat will tend to go some place cooler (indoors, if you’re trying to heat, or outdoors, if you’re trying to cool). When you remove the pressure, the gas is now cooler than its surroundings. Heat pumps, including refrigerators and air conditioners, work this way, more or less.
Unfortunately, the occupants of a house can’t depend on contact with warm, solid surfaces as a primary source of heat (despite what you might hear from people who deal in heated counter tops and toilet seats). At best, conductive heating is a side benefit (or a luxury feature). Thus, home heating is primarily about radiation and convection, known as radiant heating and forced air heating, respectively.
The next article in this series explains the drawbacks of using forced air heating, cooling and ventilation systems (HVAC).
Previous articles in this series:

Heating Your Home: Radiant Heat, Wood Heat.
Related articles:

Super-Insulating Vacuum Glass



MMS Receives 40,000+ Comments On Cape Wind
Timothy B. Hurst — Tue, 06 May 2008 07:07:18 +0000
 Agency permanently extends comment period for alt. energy leases
In the fall of 2001, Jim Gordon of Energy Management Inc. (EMI) announced his intentions to build a 420 megawatt wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts - the nation’s first. Now, the long permitting process that was made even longer by powerful opposition  groups, is nearing resolution…finally.
More than 40,000 individuals and organizations have submitted comments on an environmental review of the wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound, according to an article in the Cape Cod Times.
“I’ve never seen anything like this before,” said Rodney Cluck, Cape Wind project manager for the U.S. Minerals Management Service, the lead federal agency to review Cape Wind Associates’ plan to build 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound, off the coast of Massachusetts. Originally, the comments were set to be released last Friday, but officials at the Minerals Management Service postponed the release to give agency staffers more time to organize the overwhelming public response to the proposed wind farm.
As a result of the scoping process’ popularity, the MMS announced that they would be preemptively extending the comment period for all of the remaining “Alternative Energy Leases” from 30 to 60 days.
The final number of public comments submitted on the agency’s Cape Wind draft environmental report has yet to be tallied. But it is quite telling that an earlier 2005 report on the same project issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers produced one-tenth the number of comments than this one indicates that MMS did something right since taking over the review of Cape Wind from the Army Corps as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (As an aside, I think it also says something about the Corps of Engineers’ ability to adequately conduct a thorough public scoping process).
Opponents remain critical; supporters remain confident
The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, the project’s most vocal opponent, enlisted 40 experts to review the report. The hired guns produced a 3,000-page critique of the Cape Wind proposal. One theme of critique coming from private scientists as well as public ones, was that the report’s information on migratory birds and fishery habitats where the project would be located is inadequate. “At the very least, the (report) should explain why recommended studies and analyses were not conducted and the ramifications of not having that information,” Michael Bartlett, supervisor for the New England Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
Despite the criticisms of the MMS report, the vast majority of comments submitted will be in favor of the project, predicted Mark Rodgers, Communications Director for Cape Wind Associates.
A record of decision from the agency indicating approval or disapproval of the Cape Wind project is expected to be released sometime in the winter. And only then will this long, arduous journey be over…right?
Cape Cod Times
Other Posts Related to the Cape Wind Project:
“The Politicos Chiming in On Cape Wind” :: sustainablog (8/2005)
“(D)emocracy: Tell the Feds What You Think About Cape Wind” :: Planetsave (2/2008)
“Survey Finds Overwhelming Support for Cape Wind” :: ecopolitology (8/2007)
“Breaking: MMS Report Favorable on Cape Wind” :: sustainablog (1/2008)
“Cape Wind Opponent to Step Down” :: sustainablog (1/2008)
Photo: © Kamil Sobócki | Dreamstime.com



The Cleanest Cars on Earth: Honda Civic GX and Other Natural Gas Vehicles (NGVs)
Clayton B. Cornell — Mon, 05 May 2008 17:58:14 +0000

Clean Burning Natural Gas Vehicles (NGVs) are hot commodities in some parts of the country, where fuel can sell for as low as $0.63 per gallon.
Unlike the world’s most fuel efficient car (VW’s 285 MPG bullet), the Honda Civic GX looks like a standard passenger vehicle. What makes it special is what you don’t see: tailpipe emissions that are often cleaner than ambient air.
The Civic GX is powered by compressed natural gas—methane—the simplest and cleanest-burning hydrocarbon available. With an economical 113-hp, 1.8-Liter engine, the EPA has called the Civic the “world’s cleanest internal-combustion vehicle” with 90% cleaner emissions than the average gasoline-powered car on the road in 2004.
And get this: in Utah, natural gas can be purchased for $0.63 per gallon.
At $24,590, buying a new Civic GX won’t exactly break your bank account, especially since up to $7,000 will come back to you in the form of state and federal tax credits. But don’t expect to find one easily. The car is only sold in two states, New York and California, and Honda can’t build them fast enough. One dealership said they have over 80 people waiting to buy.
It’s fairly obvious why densely populated states would be interested, especially since natural gas is a readily available source of heating fuel for many parts of the country. Most importantly, the Civic is the Eagle Scout of emissions certifications: it qualified for the California Air Resources Board’s Advanced Technology Partial Zero-Emission Vehicle (AT-PZEV) status, which means that it’s a Super-Ultra-Low-Emission Vehicle (SULEV) with zero-evaporative emissions. To qualify for AT-PZEV, the Civic must also carry a 15-year/150,000-mile warranty on emissions equipment. It also meets EPA’s strict Tier-2, Bin-2 and ILEV certification.
Despite getting the equivalent of a good but not quite amazing 36 MPG highway/24 MPG city, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) awarded the Civic the green ribbon as the greenest vehicle of 2008. That’s the fifth consecutive year it’s taken the top prize.
So what’s the downside?
Drawbacks to the Civic GX and other Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles
Earlier this week I was clued-in to the explosion in popularity of compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles in Southern Utah, and their potential to overwhelm the 91 refueling stations already in place there.
That’s the biggest drawback to NGVs:

There are only about 1,600 CNG stations nationwide (compared to 200,000 gas stations), though some areas (like Utah and California) are better served than others. To see where these stations are, see the alternative fuel locater from Mapquest (under #2 on that post).

One way to get around this is to buy your own natural gas refueling station. Since a large number of us burn natural gas for heat, this doesn’t require much more than setting up a pump. The refueling kits, made by FuelMaker, will set you back about $3,500, but that can be offset by substantial tax credits.

Second drawback: since natural gas is a compressed fuel, the tank takes up some trunk space, and only holds the equivalent of 8 gallons of gasoline. Honda estimates the vehicle’s range to be 220 to 250 miles, although Consumer Reports claimed it was closer to 180 miles.

NGV enthusiasts are getting around range limitations (and vehicle scarcity) by converting their own vehicles to run on natural gas and adding spare tank capacity. Throwing extra tanks in the bed of a truck, for example, can boost driving range to around 600 miles. The best part about converting a vehicle (as opposed to the Civic GX) is that if you run out of CNG, the system automatically switches back to gasoline.


Third drawback: NGVs don’t provide that great of a reduction in greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions when compared to their gasoline counterparts.

According to the industry group Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVA),  the reduction is only 20%, which is about the same GHG reduction you get from corn-based ethanol. That doesn’t sound too impressive, but it’s still a reduction, and clean air could be worth it.
The big question mark is natural gas supply. If large amounts of biomethane can be produced from biomass (which is probably already done at your local landfill), the emissions reductions would be much greater.

But What About Natural Gas Supply?
Natural gas supplies 20% of all energy use in the US. According to NGVA: “Even if the number of NGVs were to increase 100-fold in the next ten years to 11,000,000 or roughly 5% of the entire vehicle market (a formidable goal), the impact on natural gas supplies and the natural gas delivery infrastructure would be small — equating to about 4 percent of total U.S. natural gas consumption.”
At first glance, that sounds pretty good, but any increase in natural gas usage means importing more fuel.
Taking a look at data from the Energy Information Administration, the US uses about 21.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year, most of which is produced domestically (18.5 trillion cubic feet) with the difference being imported (4.2 trillion cubic feet). Proved natural gas reserves in the US amount to about 211 trillion cubic feet. If my math is correct, without taking into account any increase in demand, the US only has about 11.5 years of natural gas left. After that, we’re back to square one: importing oil from Russia, Qatar, Iran, and Saudi Arabia
Like petroleum, two-thirds of world natural gas supply exists in just a few countries. If we’re at all worried about having domestic (let alone renewable) energy sources, basing the future of US transportation on natural gas puts us right back in the same position we’re in now.
Also like petroleum, there is an “infinite supply” argument: “Don’t worry, we won’t run out… promise.” NGVA says that if we can tap into methane hydrate ice formations that exist under 1000 feet of water at the bottom of the arctic oceans, we’ll be just fine. Right now, this is about as plausible as time travel, and methane hydrates serve a very important function—they’re a crucial sink for carbon dioxide in the global carbon cycle.
Conclusions
Whether or not we’ve learned our lesson about importing foreign energy, natural gas could still provide a functional infrastructure and technology for transition to hydrogen fuel cells. Natural gas is currently the number one feedstock for producing hydrogen, and refueling stations along California’s hydrogen highway may produce the fuel by reforming natural gas on-site. Basically, this gives us a transition fuel until we figure out how to make hydrogen sustainably.
As for the Honda Civic GX, it may be the cleanest-burning vehicle on the market, but the drawbacks listed above are likely to keep NGVs out of mainstream production for the forseeable future. It seems unlikely that natural gas will stay as cheap as it currently is in Utah, but relatively low pricing could keep the car’s popularity high in some areas. It will be interesting to see how things resolve there.
For more on the Honda Civic GX, see Honda’s Website and Consumer Reports. See more pictures below.
For more on Natural Gas, see Natural Gas Cars: CNG Fuel Almost Free in Some Parts of the Country. 
Posts Related to Alternative Fuels and Green Car Technology:

Affordable Electric Cars Coming to US in 2009
How Biodiesel Fuel-Cells Could Power The Future (And Your Car)
How Solar Panels Could Power 90% of US Transportation
Six New Technologies Will Help Manufacturers Reach the 35 MPG Goal (Without Hybrids)




Photo Credit: Honda 



Clinton Gas Tax Plan Doesn’t Need Economists, Just Good Implementation?
Timothy B. Hurst — Mon, 05 May 2008 09:27:21 +0000
I usually don’t watch the Sunday morning talk shows like Meet the Press or This Week. I’m not sure why. I think this is because I have a deeply ingrained aversion to them dating back to my childhood. You see, we really only had a handful of channels in those pre-cable days, and on Sunday mornings, before the cartoons really got going, three of those channels were running these incredibly boring talk shows - when they should have been running, at least from my point of view, cartoons. It was completely beyond me why they were running these shows at all, and not just doubling up on Superfriends or Scooby Doo! It seems I knew, even at that young age, that there were some things are just better off left till Monday.
What I’m getting at, is that I did not see Hillary Clinton on This Week with George Stephanopolous, on Sunday morning. But since we have a 24-hour media matrix covering every breath and every word in this presidential campaign, I was told all about it by all of my regular news outlets as soon as I got up. I was most struck by Senator Clinton’s reply to Stephanopolous’ question about the pushback her proposed summertime gas-tax holiday has received. 

STEPHANOPOLOUS:
“Economists say that’s not going to happen. They say this is going to go straight into the profits of the oil companies. They’re not going to actually lower their prices. And the two top leaders in the House are against it. Nearly every editorial board and economist in the country has come out against it. Even a supporter of yours, Paul Krugman of The New York Times, calls it pointless and disappointing.
Can you name one economist, a credible economist who supports the suspension?”
[Clinton tried to elude the question with a foray into populist appeals of how elite opinion is bringing down the hard-working middle class, but Stephanopolous reiterated the question].
STEPHANOPOULOS:
“But can you name an economist who thinks this makes sense?”
CLINTON:
“Well, I’ll tell you what, I’m not going to put my lot in with economists, because I know if we get it right, if we actually did it right, if we had a president who used all the tools of the presidency, we would design it in such a way that it would be implemented effectively.”
Now, I am usually the last person to be defending economists, but when it comes to designing energy tax policy, perhaps an economist is not a bad person to talk to, no? Former Labor Secretary in the Clinton administration, Robert Reich thinks so. Reich wrote in his blog on Sunday:
“I’m not suggesting economists have all the answers. But when economists tell a president or a presidential candidate that his or her idea is dumb – and when all respectable economists around America agree that it’s a dumb idea – it’s probably wise for the president or presidential candidate to listen. When the president or candidate doesn’t, and proudly defends the policy by saying she’s “not going to put my lot in with economists,” we’ve got a problem, folks.
“Even though the summer gas tax holiday is pure hokum, it polls well, which is why HRC and John McCain are pushing it. That Barack Obama is not in favor of it despite its positive polling numbers speaks volumes about the kind of president he’ll be – and the kind of president we’d otherwise get from McCain and HRC.”
This gas tax holiday is just a bad idea all the way around. First of all, Sen. Clinton proposes that her tax be paid for by the oil companies. Do you actually think something like that would get through the Senate? Let me say this, if Congress wouldn’t repeal tax breaks to big oil to fund renewable energy tax credits, they are not going to pay for a summertime tax moratorium on gas with an increased tax on the oil companies.
Abolishing the federal excise tax on gasoline in the summer leading up to the presidential election is exactly the kind of pure pandering that is not going to get Hillary Clinton or John McCain elected.
Photo: robertstown2001
See Also: 

“Obama’s New Ad Rejects Gas Tax Break“
“Can Hillary Clinton Take on Big Oil?“
“Clinton Takes Jabs at Obama’s Energy Policy“




Heating Your Home: Radiant Heat, Wood Heat
Chris Schille — Mon, 05 May 2008 06:19:05 +0000
Author’s note: the following article on home heating is the first in an eight-part series. The series specifically targets climate found in the San Francisco Bay Area, but has applicability elsewhere.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, heating and cooling amounts to 46% of all energy consumed by our homes. Water heating uses another 14%. In coastal California, where extreme heat is rare and winters are mild, a properly sited, well designed passive solar home can generate its own heat and hot water, and do without air conditioning.
Historically, few homes are so well sited or built. Since our area has more heating days than cooling days, most homeowners need a heating system. What few know is that many indoor air quality problems can be by-products of forced air heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems installed in their homes. 
Too often, homeowners are unaware that they have better options. Radiant heat delivery is more efficient than forced air and has the potential to solve a number of indoor air quality (IAQ) problems. Fewer still know that wood-based radiant heat, besides avoiding these IAQ issues, has even more benefits. Significantly:

wood heat is usually less expensive than fossil fuel
heat produced from wood is carbon-neutral
with the right equipment, wood will burn cleanly enough to meet stringent air quality standards

Some municipalities also are unaware that wood can be burned cleanly, and prohibit wood burning appliances in new homes. If we don’t take the time to educate others about the benefits of wood heat, one of the next best alternatives to solar heating is in danger of being banned everywhere.
The next article in this series explains what heat is and how it’s used to warm a home.
Photo credit: Temp-Cast Enviroheat LTD



64-House Solar Village Saves Residents $37,700 Annually
Gavin Hudson — Sun, 04 May 2008 03:44:34 +0000

In many ways, Shinhyocheon is just a typical suburb. It’s in Nam-gu, on the southern outskirts of Gwangju, one of South Korea’s biggest cities. In fact, if you don’t look closely, the Shinhyocheon solar village is easy to miss. Of the 1.4 million people living in Gwangju, most have never heard of it. Local taxi drivers wrinkle their brows and shrug; even the tourist information center in downtown Gwangju has trouble finding it on the map.
But for those who know it, Shinhyocheon deserves a place in energy history. In 2004, it became South Korea’s first solar village – a neighborhood of 64 solar powered houses where residents enjoy cheap, clean energy. The solar panels in this neighborhood generate over 115 MW of energy in a year. For each resident, that translates into an annual savings of around $589 USD, or a total of $37,700 for all 64 houses combined.
Inspired by Shinhyocheon’s success, the local government is planning to expand the number of solar houses in Nam-gu by adding 340 new sun-powered residential buildings.

With South Korea attempting to tackle climate change, the environmental benefits of placing solar panels on homes are obvious. However, the government’s decision to test large-scale domestic solar technology in Shinhyocheon came mostly from South Korea’s drive to reduce reliance on foreign fossil fuel imports. In a way, Shinhyocheon is an experiment in energy independence.
In the Economy Department of nearby Nam-gu City Hall, city employee Bak Se-ra explains, “Global Warming is one reason [for Shinhyocheon], but I think the first reason is the energy savings.”
The actual construction costs of the village were some $1,510,000 USD, but each resident only had to pay 30% of the solar panel’s cost. The rest was underwritten by the central government.
That was under South Korea’s previous system of solar energy financing. Since 2007, the government will now pay for 60% of the installation costs for widely used solar technology and 80% of the costs for new, more expensive technology.
After hearing about it, I decided to visit Shinhyocheon. As a network of buses and taxis takes me closer to Shinhyocheon, the cement grid of the city begins to fray. On the far side of this small suberb, the outer edges of Gwangju eventually disolve into the low-lying ridges of the ancient mountains that ripple throughout South Korea.
Each house in the green village produces 2.1 kW, or around 2/3 of the energy required by the typical South Korean household. If such a high fraction of the nation’s energy needs could be met by solar energy, then solar villages like Shinhyocheon could become much more common. They might be an important answer in solving the clean energy riddle in South Korea and throughout the world.
“I’m convinced that in the future, housees will have this system,” said Bak, “because there is no pollution and the house itself can produce energy.”
Photo credit: Gwangju City, Nam-go



Smart Power Strips the Garlic of Vampire Electronics
Michelle Bennett — Sat, 03 May 2008 13:15:31 +0000

I cover a lot of upcoming or future technology, but it’s time to step into the present and aim for the past. Today we’re going to look at a technology available right now that can make some wanton energy waste history. It’s a surge protector that stakes the hearts of vampire electronics without hassling you, the sleeping victim.
Vampire appliances are pretty much anything you can plug in that still sucks energy when it’s supposedly turned off. Some are pretty obvious - the clocks on your microwave or VCR/DVD player burn all day, everyday. We know they’re not “off” because we cans see their LEDs glow. But other electronics, from your television to your cell phone charger also draw power when they’re plugged in but not in use. Check out a handy graph from Good Magazine. Some gadgets are notorious, like your plasma TV. Estimates claim that 5% or more of U.S. energy usage is insidiously wasted by “stand-by mode” or certain misleading “off” buttons. A whopping 5% may not sound like much, but it adds up to about $1 Billion dollars per year - and energy prices will probably continue to rise.
Be honest - how many times would you go around the house unplugging everything before it got old? Smart greenies have been switching off their surge protectors, but it’s easy to forget while watching your favorite late-night TV show or blogging at 4am. So what can we do about these metal-toothed Nosferatu in our midst? How about a surge protector that turns off all your appliances for you?
Smart Power Strips are easy to use: One “master” outlet on the strip controls six other “slave” outlets. When the power usage of the master outlet decreases (by a large enough amount), it automatically turns off the slave outlets. If you plug your “master electronic” like a TV or computer into the master outlet, all your periphery appliances - printers, speakers, Playstation, etc. - are automatically turned off. Oh wait, you have a Tivo and you don’t want all of your peripheries to turn off? No worries, the Smart Power Strip has three “constant” outlets that behave like normal, so you won’t miss your favorite shows. And of course, when you turn the “master” back on, the “slaves” will buzz to life. So instead of housing a legion of thirsty vampires, you can sleep soundly with a gadget that puts your electronics on a diet. For the best deal, check out Amazon.com.
This is not the first or only such gadget on the market. Your choices range from super-smart peripherals to wall monitors to watt-counting surge protectors. You can even use a low cost, old-fashioned timer. For your energy efficient computer needs, you can download power-saving freeware. These applications extend beyond home use too; businesses are jumping on the band wagon to reduce their energy costs and boost the bottom line. These steps could provide big savings for offices with lots of computers and copy machines.
EDIT: Thanks to Tim Hurst for pointing out a neat video via Ecoscraps
(Nosferatu image courtesy of LikeTelevision.com)
(Smart Power Strip image courtesy of MetaEfficient.com)

Green Options » Energy

Who is Rod Adams? Environmentalist, Humanitarian…Nuke?

Obama: Blame the Iraq War for Lack of US Climate Change Leadership

Related posts on Barack Obama:

What Do I WIMBY (Want In My Backyard)?

GreenBuildingTalk: Solar Hot Water and Heating — Is it Right for You?

Read More about Hot Water and Heating:

Let’s Talk About the ‘C’ Word

Sustainable Sips

First 100% Off-Grid Green Building in San Francisco

South Korean Solar System Community on Jeju Island a Brilliant Idea

Solar System Powers Donggwang Green Village on Semi-Tropical Jeju Island

More Posts on Solar Power:

How Marin Can Dramatically Boost Renewable Energy And Save Money

Low Impact Living: Green Your Kitchen

Get Green in the Kitchen

Remodel Your Kitchen the Great Green Way– it’s healthy, sustainable and gorgeous!

Part 2: There Are Good and Bad Biofuels

What Is Cellulosic Ethanol?

Why Cellulosic Ethanol Can Be an Environmental Winner

The Major Advantage of Cellulosic Ethanol

Why We Can’t Fill Our Tanks With the Cellulosic Stuff … Yet

Cellulosic Ethanol Could Help Cut U.S. Global Warming Pollution

The Bottom Line of Biofuels: There Are Winners and Losers

Heating Your Home: Heat 101

MMS Receives 40,000+ Comments On Cape Wind

Agency permanently extends comment period for alt. energy leases

Opponents remain critical; supporters remain confident

The Cleanest Cars on Earth: Honda Civic GX and Other Natural Gas Vehicles (NGVs)

Clean Burning Natural Gas Vehicles (NGVs) are hot commodities in some parts of the country, where fuel can sell for as low as $0.63 per gallon.

Drawbacks to the Civic GX and other Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles

But What About Natural Gas Supply?

Conclusions

Posts Related to Alternative Fuels and Green Car Technology:

Clinton Gas Tax Plan Doesn’t Need Economists, Just Good Implementation?

Heating Your Home: Radiant Heat, Wood Heat

64-House Solar Village Saves Residents $37,700 Annually

Smart Power Strips the Garlic of Vampire Electronics