Sunday, January 25, 2009

Obama’s Economic Recovery Plan – the environmental component.

excerpt from the official report, viewed at www.washingtonpost.com

Spurring a Clean Energy Economy

Doubling renewable energy generating capacity over three years. It took 30 years for our nation to reach its current level of renewable generating capacity – the recovery and
reinvestment plan will double that level over the next three years. That increase in capacity is enough to power 6 million American homes.

Jump-starting the transformation to a bigger, better, smarter grid. The upfront investments and reforms in modernizing our nation’s electricity grid will result in more than 3,000 miles of new or modernized transmission lines and 40 million “Smart Meters” in American homes.

Weatherizing at least two million homes to save low-income families on average $350 per year and modernizing more than 75% of federal building space, saving taxpayers $2 billion per year in lower federal energy bills. Today, the federal government is the world’s largest consumer of energy. The recovery and reinvestment plan will make an historic investment in upgrading the federal building stock that will save taxpayer dollars and help catalyze a green building industry.

Launching a Clean Energy Finance Initiative to leverage $100 billion in private sector clean energy investments over three years. The finance authority will provide loan guarantees and other financial support to help ease credit constraints for renewable energy investors and catalyze new private sector investment over the next three years. Sphere: Related Content

Friday, January 23, 2009

Incandescent bulbs on the way out



Associated Press

NEW YORK – Light bulb makers have revamped some plants, shuttered others and invested enormous sums of money in preparation for a technological shift that they believe will revolutionize the industry.

Yet the fact that the incandescent bulb, which has remained largely unchanged for more than a century, is about to become obsolete is lost on the vast majority of the public.

The phase-out of the iconic light bulb begins in three years as part of the energy bill signed in 2007. They will be edged out by light-emitting diodes, or LEDs, made from semiconductors, and compact fluorescent bulbs, known by their twisty, tubular shape.

New regulations require, for instance, that a typical 100-watt bulb be replaced by one that provides the same amount of light with 72 watts. Light bulbs will have to be even more efficient by 2020.

The author of the energy bill's lighting provision, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said at the time that incandescents "will be virtually obsolete" by 2014.

Osram Sylvania, one of the world's largest bulb producers, commissioned a survey to find out if the public agreed, only to find out 80 percent of Americans don't know the light bulb, as we know it, is on the way out.

Major bulb manufacturers and retailers are meeting in Dallas this week to find ways to incorporate LEDs into more products, but have been in transition mode for years.

General Electric has closed lighting plants in Brazil, Mexico and the U.S., and Osram Sylvania is modifying existing plants.

The European Union will start phasing incandescent bulbs out this September.

Specialty incandescent bulbs – such as those used in appliances – will be available on a limited basis.

The cost of switching over to LEDs and compact fluorescents could be a jolt to some consumers.

Royal Philips Electronics introduced a line of LEDs in Europe last year for about $90. General Electric's base LED bulb sells for about $35 to $40.

Prices will come down as technology improves, said Charlie Jerabek, president and chief executive of Osram Sylvania.

And the new bulbs do eventually pay off, economically and in efficiency.

A recent study by Rensselaer Polytechic Institute estimates global financial savings from LEDs could exceed $10 trillion within 10 years because they last much longer.

Americans keep about 73 million lights on every day for a period of between four and 12 hours, with about 28 million powered by energy-efficient bulbs, according to the Department of Energy.

The new lighting standards coming online are expected to lower consumers' annual electricity bills by $13 billion in 2020.

Incandescent bulbs, invented by Thomas Edison more than 120 years ago, brighten a room by heating a metal filament in a vacuum, but waste large amounts of heat.

Compact fluorescent bulbs contain a gas that reacts with electricity to create invisible ultraviolet light. When that light hits material inside the bulb, it is converted into ordinary light.

But some people find the light from compact bulbs harsh, and the fluorescents contain toxic mercury, meaning they shouldn't simply be thrown in the trash.

LEDs emit very little heat, do not contain mercury like compact fluorescent bulbs, are about 40 percent more efficient, and if installed correctly last for more than 50,000 hours.

So far only 12 percent of Osram Sylvania's business comes from LEDs. The company plans to market LED bulbs for home use within three months.

For lighting engineers, the LED has become the new playground. They can be designed to change colors and have multiple applications, from mood lighting in the living room to the harsh environent of a rock concert stage.

"The way we interact with lighting systems is going to change dramatically," said the American Lighting Association's Terry McGowan. "It's limited only by your imagination, or your budget."


Original text for this article viewed at http://www.kvue.com/projectgreen/greenarticles/stories/012109kvue_light_bulb-cb.1695f23a.html
Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Making our own power.


Today I had a site visit from a representative of Standard Solar, one of the new and local green energy businesses in the DC Metro area.

We live in a home that was built in 1929. Energy efficiency is not something that was really a part of home building then – the insulation is woefully insufficient, the window frames are drafty, and the fact that it is a multi-level structure means that comfortably (and evenly) heating and cooling the house is a significant challenge.

We bought the house in 2005, enamored of the bright airy feel and cosmetic updates completed by the previous owners. Needless to say, cosmetics don’t help the utility bill; in fact, many of the changes made to the home such as additional lighting, central heat and air, and outdoor landscape lighting simply increase the energy use and the carbon footprint of our little patch of paradise.

Right away, we started making some changes. More energy efficient appliances were the first things we added. We didn’t purchase all Energy Star appliances, due to our budget at the time, but we were mindful of the energy ratings on everything we purchased. While we wouldn’t have installed the central air/heat unit in the manner the previous owners chose, we also realize that in a few short years we’ll need to replace the whole thing. Insulation, caulking, and CFL bulbs have all been added, and yet our utility bills are still significant. What we do have working for us is plenty of bright, sunshiny roof space.

Here is what we learned in today’s visit with the fine folks at Standard Solar:

1. Our available space to place panels is large enough for panels that can offset more than 50% of our electricity usage.
2. Our energy usage, for our square footage, is below average.
3. The cost of the panels and installation, after state grants and tax credits are realized, will be paid back through electric cost savings in less than 5 years.
4. Standard Solar has extremely knowledgeable staff, ready to help us wade through the maze of grants and tax credits.
5. Once in place, the use of solar energy means we will be using far less energy from coal. This makes me very happy.

This is just the beginning of our planning. I’ll be posting updates as they occur. Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Scientists Agree on Global Warming

(CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.

Against a backdrop of harsh winter weather across much of North America and Europe, the concept of rising global temperatures might seem incongruous.

However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," said Peter Doran associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and one of the survey's authors.

"Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

However, Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it.

"The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," said Doran.

Full article at http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, January 19, 2009

Green Guest Suggestion




One of the recent changes we’ve made in the Green Guest household is to use cloth napkins instead of paper napkins. Once saved for only formal occasions, we realized we could save money by using cloth napkins for every meal. Not only do we save the cost of purchasing paper napkins that get thrown away after each use, but we also save landfill/recycle space, and contribute to the reduction of the number of trees cut down for paper.

The up-front cost of buying cloth napkins doesn’t have to be a challenge to your budget, either. Check re-sale shops, garage sales, and discount retailers for bargain prices. Because they are relatively small, washing them doesn’t take any significant additional resources – we just toss them in with our regular loads of laundry.

While you’re at it, consider cloth dishtowels and sponges to reduce the use of paper towels – one more way to save money, trees, and our Blue Planet. Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Takin' a bite outta global warming

funny pictures of cats with captions
more animals Sphere: Related Content