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