Using Waste, Swedish City Cuts Its Fossil Fuel Use

Kristianstad, a city in Sweden, is using trash as am alternative for oil. Items like wood clippings, pig intestines, stale cookies, potato peels, manure, and cooking oil are burned so that they form biogas, which is a form of methane gas. This city is in a major region of agriculture in Sweden, so it has access to a myriad of wastes. As you can imagine, this is saving the city money because they don't have to purchase foreign oil. It also has created new jobs.

The United States, though, is not fully embracing this new technology. We only have a little over 100 biogas plants in the country, and they are only burning manure. The reason we haven't looked into it as much is because the cost is high at first, and we don't really have a plan as to how we would use the gas or how we would transport it from one place to another. Personally, I definitely think we should look into this alternative energy. Just think of how much trash you bring to the curb every week. Imagine if all of it could be turned into fuel. We know that fossil fuels are someday going to run out, and I feel like we are nowhere near prepared for that day. However, I think that now is the perfect time to begin investing in alternative fuel, and what better alternative than something that you will constantly have an abundance of?

Questions:

1) Do you think we should embrace this new form of alternative energy? Why or why not?

2) If we did invest in this technology, how long do you think it would be before it finally became widespread? Why?

3) Do you feel that we would eventually be able to replace oil with biogas formed from trash? Why or why not?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/science/earth/11fossil.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Wind Energy

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101121195434.htm
By: Kristi Rice

Summary

       Ever since 2008 there have been new wind turbine power generation added in the US.  The cost of producing energy form the turbine continues to drop.  But wind power is far from the optimal way to get our energy.  The efficiency of the wind turbines is all based on the winds and their changeability.  They are most efficient under a steady flow of wind.  Researchers are designing "new types of air flow technology may soon increase the efficiency of large wind turbines under many different wind conditions."  Researchers from Syracuse University are testing new intelligent systems that will help the efficiency of the turbines.  From their research they could reduce the noise that the wind turbine makes.  Another problem that the scientist had to face was the drag, resistance felt by the tribune blades as they hit the air.  The University of Minnesota put tinny grooves on the turbine blades.  The groves form triangular riblets scored into the coating on the blade surface.  This will help increase the efficiency by about 3%.

       I think that it is great that the US is adding more wind turbines.  The wind power is an extra way for use to get eco friendly power.  Plus it is also getting cheaper to produce them.  I'm glad that they are improving the ideas that we have already created.  It is always good to use our resource to their best of their ability.  I think this was a interesting article to read.  I remember doing an article on wind power when I was younger and I remember a good amount form then but I still learned a few new things by reading this article. 

Question

1.Do you think it is good thing that we added more wind power even when they only work really well with a steady supply of wind?
2.Is it worth putting all our time, money and energy into improving old ideas or creating new ideas? The new ideas could be better or worse for the environment.
3.Was this article worth reading or not? Why? (Don't say you had to read it. Give your honest opinion.)

Enhancing the Efficiency of Wind Turbines

National Renewable Energy Law

The United States has been one of the top polluters in the world, and many of the reasons are because of our huge use of non-renewable energy sources. If we continue to waste like this, we are going to run out of fuel and have to spend a lot of money to fix it. However, recently scientists have done some calculations and found out that the United States could gain $342 million! This could be done by adapting the Renewable Energy Standard policy from other places like Europe who have already established this.This is a twenty percent rise for our economy, which would definitely help us in times like this. By using renewable energy sources more efficiently and more often, we would also be helping the Earth.
http://cleantechnica.com/2010/12/08/us-would-gain-342-billion-from-a-national-renewable-energy-policy-pew-report/
Susan Kraemer
December 8, 2010
Reflection:
I think that this is a great idea to gain money AND help the environment at the same time, but not very realistic. From what I got out of the article, it seems that narrowing down our energy sources to mostly or all renewable is a long shot. Maybe later in the future when we have more information and research we will be able to, but right now it seems close to impossible. The article also didn't take into account the expenses in building and maintaining these sources. I don't really think they explained all the information well enough, and more research should have been done before making it an article. But in general I personally think that it would be a really good idea to power homes and big factories that use up a lot of energy. I know that my home uses a lot of electricity.
1) Do you think that this is a realistic goal to have for the United States? Why or why not?
2) Why do you think other countries already have this policy established and are more advanced in this field?
3) Do you think that we should aim for this goal, or continue to use non-renewable sources? Is the $342 billion worth it?

More Ethanol in Gasoline is Risky

Summary:
The BP oil spill was a clear indicator that we need to find safer and cleaner energy sources for our cars, homes, and businesses. An example of a clean alternative is biofuels. Biofuels are energy grown on the surface of the land, instead of deep underground. However, although there are many clean and safe biofuels, there are also some that are dangerous to the envioronment. One of these harmful biofuels is ethanol from corn. Ethanol is resposible for more global warming than the amount of oil it produces. That means the amount of global warming it causes is greater than the amount of oil it produces! Ethanol also contaminates our sources of water and causes the price of food to skyrocket. There are alternative biofuels, such as ones made from switchgrass and winter-cover crops. However, these biofuels are being left alone in the dirt while the ethanol biofuels are being used left and right. Worsening the issue, the EPA recently changed the amount of ethanol we may use in our gasoline from 10% to 15% for all vehicles made since 2007. The burning of ethanol from tailpipes of cars causes air pollution, and it is even more of pollutant now that there is 15% of ethanol in gasoline. All of this is being funded by taxpayers, so that means that the money we pay for taxes is going towards ethanol, a substance that harms our envioronment. With this being said, we should look for cleaner biofuels so we are putting our tax money towards something effective and environmentally safe.

Reflection:
I had no idea that ethanol was that bad for the environment. On top of that, I am even more shocked at the fact that the government continues to allow the use of ethanol in gasoline, knowing that it pollutes our air when cars drive. I do not like the fact that our tax money is going towards ethanol, because that basically means that we are paying to harm the environment. I think that we should find an alternative substance to put into our gasoline, something that is more environmentally friendly. That way, we would be paying for something that is helping the environment, not hurting it. In addition, I was also very surprised that the EPA contributed to this issue by allowing the amount of ethanol in gasoline to rise from 10% to 15%. This is awful, considering that the EPA is supposed to help our environment, not contribute to negative aspects that are harming it. I hope that the EPA lowers this percentage in the future and I also hope that one day we will be able to find an alternative biofuel for our gasoline, so global warming does not progressively get worse and worse. Using all of this ethanol worries me because it plays a major role in global warming, so if we continue to use more and more of it, our earth will get worse and worse, and will have a shorter lifespan. I think the government and EPA and other environmentalists need to work together and come up with an alternative.

Questions:
1. How do you feel about putting your money (from taxes) towards ethanol, which is contributing to air pollution and global warming?
2. What are your opinions on the EPA raising the amount of ethanol allowed in gasoline from 10% to 15%? How do you think this will affect the environment?
3. What do you think needs to be done to prevent further damage and pollution to our environment (in particular the air)?

Link:


http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/10/20/greene.ethanol.risk/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

Recently, scientists have discovered a way to discover what the atmosphere was like on Mars and Earth millions of years ago. This was originally found out by Robina Shaheen, who had been doing research on this topic for the past four years. This can be done by using a chemical reaction found in the atmosphere from very small particulates. Discovering this also gives an explanation for chemical compounds that were found on Mars years ago. They were thought to have been signs of Martian activity but now we know that this is not the case. Although not much more is known on the matter yet, this is basically a new and efficient way to measure the Earth's atmosphere which can help us make greater discoveries in the future.

I think that this is a great discovery and will help us find many other important things in the future. If we have fast and efficient ways to find out what the Earth and Mars's atmosphere is like, I can't imagine what we will have the capability to do later! This could lead to so many other discoveries like what life might have been like on Mars, or how the atmosphere changed on Earth over the years. It could also help us solve major climate issuses having to do with the atmosphere like the ozone layer and global warming.

1) What are your thoughts on this new discovery? Do you think it is important and should be pursued further?
2) What are some other ways that you think this can be used to help us today and in the future?
3) Do you think that Martian life really did once exist on Mars? Should we use this new evidence to pursue topics like that or more current issues like global warming?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101108151330.htm
Science Daily
November 13th, 2010

Every Person Emits Two Tons of Carbon Dioxide a Year Through Eating, Spanish Study Finds

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101102131108.htm

By: Kristi Rice

A new study by researchers in Spain finds that every person emits the equivalent of approximately two tons of carbon dioxide a year from the time food is produced to when the human body excretes it.

A team of researchers in Spain did research on the Spanish diet and found out that we play a part of the cycle of food; this is the first time that it has ever been tested with human excrements.  Iván Muñoz main author and researcher said,"food in Spain produces emissions of around two tonnes of carbon dioxide per person and per year more than 20% of total emissions per person and per year.”  This study showed the relationship of food production and consumption with global warming and excess of nutrients.  The data that they got was that getting food from animals (meat and dairy) had the most impact, and for the greatest souce of carbon dioxicide it was fishing, agricultural and livestock.  Our excretion is a major part of polluting water.  In this article they also make a point that it is not so bad returning some of the waste water because it can add nutrients.  In the end people do not have an effect of the global warming at least by eating, and that we contribute to water pollution by nitrate and phosphorus.

 

When I first read the title I was intrigued by it because it was something different and yet it somehow had to do with recycling and waste.  I never knew how much CO2 we put into the air by eating.  It is an interesting fact to learn about.I think that it was an good thing to learn about.  Also it was a good to learn about a different type of doing an experiment.  After having our water hydrosphere unit I am not surprised in learning that we are a big contributor to water pollution.  I am glad to know that I am not affecting the earth by eating food.

Question

        1. What do you think about this article? (Personal opinion)

        2. Do you think this is worth knowing or not? Explain what you think.

        3. How accurate do you think this research is because they only studied people that live in Spain and that have a diet of 881 kilograms? Why do you think this.

Drugs In The Water: Even When Careful, Pharmaceuticals Can End Up In Water

Even though most of us dispose of prescription drugs by throwing them in the trash, they can still end up in our drinking water. Water drains through a landfill, and some of the prescription drugs get into the water. The water from the landfill, called leachate, eventually goes into rivers. When drinking water is drawn from these rivers, there is a chance that the water could be contaminated with prescription drugs. To prevent this, Maine is debating a law that would force drug manufacturers to develop a program to properly dispose of the medications.

Personally, I'm glad that this is finally happening, and I'm actually surprised that such a program didn't already exist. There are programs for fluorescent light bulbs, which are not as widespread as prescription drugs. I don't know about everybody else, but I don't want my water to be contaminated with something that could be harmful. Plus, if we are taking in prescription drugs and antibiotics with our water, couldn't that make more diseases resistant to the drugs? It seems to me that having a disposal program like this would be beneficial to most people, and would solve more problems than it would cause.

1. Do you support the pending law in Maine? Why or why not?

2. Do you feel comfortable knowing that there could be prescription drugs in your drinking water?

3. Who do you feel is responsible for prescription drugs in drinking water, the government or the drug manufacturers? Explain.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/08/drugs-in-the-water-even-w_n_453502.html