PPPB News

If It Seems Too Good to be True…

I recently visited a friend’s home, and was first introduced to the world of Melaleuca. My friend talked about how wonderful the products are in terms of both health and environmental considerations. But it all seemed too good to be true. Surely there has to be a catch. I’ve been spending t

ime on the internet trying to piece together what I can about these products in an un-biased way as possible, independently of melaleuca.com of course (although trying to find ingredient lists on melaleuca.com and figuring out how exactly a bar of soap can last six times longer based on science and reason, and not just promotional materials hasn’t been any easier…)

As referenced in my earlier post about the environmental considerations of shampoo, detergents and dishwashing soaps can have similar ingredients in terms of fragrances and sodium lauryl sulfate. However, reading Melaleuca’s ingredients was not helpful on its own…nonionic surfactant, fragrance, etc. It seems that if this company wanted to promote their product, the ingredient list might be a bit more transparent than “nonionic surfactant.” My friend mentioned a product that can be used both to clean floors and wash vegetables, but if I read the back of the package, there is an eye irritant warning. I’m not sure how comfortable I am putting an eye irritant into my body after washing my produce given some residue will inevitably remain no matter how well I wash my celery. I guess the company does promote that there is no formaldehyde or ammonia in their cleaning products, and this does appear to be the case based on reading the product label. That is nice, but what are the other ingredients listed on the product label more specifically?

Who knew a red plastic box, aluminum powder, and a joystick were an initial catalyst that changed Christmas morning forever?

Serendipity describes it perfectly. It started out as some random pencil marks made during otherwise routine electrical repair at the home of André Cassagnes (1926-2013), an electrician living in Paris. Noting that these random pencil marks on an adhesive surface on the plate somehow remained visible on the other side of the adhesive surface inspired Mr. Cassagnes  to design an actual device mimicking this phenomenon. He did so utilizing alu

minum powder, a plastic case, and a joystick to engineer the L’Ecran Magique (aka Télécran), the earliest version of what we know today as an etch-a-sketch which was originally premiered at the 1959 Nuremberg Toy Fair in Germany. Though the Ohio Art Company initially was not sold on the idea when first seeing the concept in Nuremberg in 1959, they later picked up on the concept in 1960, altered the design slightly (example: replacing the joystick with the classic white knobs we know today) and through effective advertising right before the 1960 Christmas season, sold over half a million L’Ecran Magique devices almost instantly. By 1998, this popular toy was nominated to the US National Toy Hall of Fame, and was honored in the top 100 memorable toys of the 20^th century by the US Toy Industry Association in 2003.

So how does this seemingly simple, commonplace device actually work? As mentioned above, Mr. Cassagnes utilized aluminum powder in his original design. Aluminum powder in the plastic case has a unique ability to adhere to a variety of surfaces, including the thin glass layer found within the etch-a-sketch apparatus. There are plastic beads incorporated into the aluminum powder intended to minimize the chances of the aluminum powder particles sticking to themselves, thus ensuring uniform distribution of the aluminum powder on the glass plate. When you shake and/or invert the apparatus to erase your artistic creations, the aluminum evenly coats the glass plate, rendering a “blank” canvas.

When you turn one or both of the white knobs, you are activating a pulley system which pulls on a wire that is connected to a stylus. This stylus rubs off the aluminum particles from whatever area of the screen the stylus is at, resulting in the artistic creation of your choice. The lines you draw only appear black because of the absence of light present within the etch-a-sketch device.

This basic concept of an etch-a-sketch was also the basis of research conducted at the University of Pittsburgh. Using both lanthanum aluminum oxide and strontium titanium oxide instead of aluminum, and the tip of an atomic force microscope as a stylus, scientists found that the changes in voltage (movement of protons and electrons based on changes in electrical field) across the surface may yield insights for potential nanowire research; these nanowires have potential use in transistors and other potential wiring applications.

As Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior advisor to former presidential candidate Mitt Romney mentioned during the campaign,”Everything changes, it’s almost like an etch-a-sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.” Whether on the political stage, as a gift to a child under a Christmas tree, as a model to help you survive physics class, or the basis of nanowire research, the etch-a-sketch has a noteworthy place not only within the history of the toy industry, but within society.

1.       http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/andre-cassagnes-electrician-who-invented-the-perennially-popular-toy-etch-a-sketch-8480625.html

2.       http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/03/us/etch-a-sketch-creator-death

3.       http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/03/22/how-does-an-etch-a-sketch-work-anyway/

4.       http://www1.union.edu/newmanj/Physics100/Light%20as%20a%20Wave/light_as_a_wave.htm

5.       http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/business/andre-cassagnes-etch-a-sketch-inventor-is-dead-at-86.html

Image Credit: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jack_of_hearts.jpg

Genetically modified foods: unraveling the research

Many of us have heard various arguments for genetically modified (GM) foods over the years ranging from improved taste or color, lengthened shelf life, increased tolerance to pests or drought, increase nutrient levels to optimize human health. This sounds great in theory. Companies will maintain that their products are acceptable because consumers purchase said products; though supply and demand cannot operate without a conscious human decision being made. Then I started to wonder: what does the research have to say – not the advertised benefits which we know well, but what does the research have to say about the integration of GM and non-GM foods, and what does the research have to say about the health effects of these foods?

It seems that the measure of safety and nutritional equivalency of GM foods as compared to non-GM foods is a concept known as substantial equivalence. The overall premise of substantial equivalence is that if the nutritional aspects of a GM food are roughly equivalent to an already existing food on the market, then the GM food can also be deemed safe. Tables 2 and 3 in the study by Chrenková et al. illustrate substantial equivalence between GM and non-GM products  in which the nutrient contents for various components (e.g. crude protein, sugar, different amino acids) which similar even if not identical. Because these numbers are similar, the GM maize is substantially equivalent and thus using this concept, the food item may be integrated into the food supply.

Another aspect I found interesting was that most research found failed to explore the long term implications of GM foods on human health. In reading J.L. Domingo’s summary of toxicity findings, it seemed many studies indicated no adverse effects on human health; however, these represented 13-week and 15-week experiments. Thirteen and/or fifteen weeks regardless seems inadequate for presentation of potential adverse effects. Perhaps these are effects that accumulate over many years and simply do not manifest themselves after such a brief experiment. Another experiment touched upon in this literature review includes a ten day experiment that suggested possible correlations with GM consumption and intestinal issues. If a ten day study suggests adverse health effects, wouldn’t this merit further investigation with a long-term study?

Yes, there was the controversial study by Séralini et al. that emerged in Europe last fall regarding potential longer term effects of GM foods. While this is a step in the right direction, I think it is hard to look at one study in isolation and extrapolate its conclusions to the entire issue. More research is needed.

Pharmaceutical drugs are subject to costly 10-20 year clinical trials before marketing, then subject to post-marketing surveillance – why shouldn’t GM foods be subject to similar scrutiny? We want to know the drugs we are putting in our body are safe and effective amidst a diverse population with endless variables (different lifestyles, disease states, genetics, environmental influences, etc.), so why should foods be any different? Furthermore, the only studies I have found seem to be limited to animal studies. While it is normal within the progression of research to use animal models before moving on to human studies (epidemiological and clinical trials), I can’t seem to find human studies. Thus, substantial equivalence for humans seems to be determined based on animal studies alone. While animal studies are a fine starting point, shouldn’t we want to follow up with human studies to confirm the findings on a human level before implementing GM foods on a national and international level?

I’m not telling you what to think. If anything, the research left me with more questions than answers. You can draw your own conclusions, and perhaps more research will be available to help unravel the truth in the years to come.

Chrenková, M, Sommer A, Čerešňáková Z, Nitrayová S, Prostrendná M. (2002). Nutritional evaluation of genetically modified maize corn performed on rats. Animal Nutrition, 56(3), 229-235.

Domingo JL. (2007). Toxicity studies of genetically modified plants: a review of published literature. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 47(8),721-733.

Based on a paper written for HN400 at Kansas State University. Altered and simplified, but original online research done within the context of this course.

Frack this! Horizontal Tight Fracking and Its Many Other Uses!

Story by Noah Botwinick, contributing author for the PeoplePlanetProfitBlog.com

What is horizontal tight fraking?

Hydraulic fracturing, other known as fracking, fraccing or fracing, is the process by which fractures in rocks underneath the surface of the earth are opened and widened by pressurized fluid; in other words, chemicals and liquids are injected at high pressure to the rocks. It is generally used to extract oil or natural gas found beneath rocks under the earth’s surface, but it has other functions as well. Holes are usually drilled two miles down and four miles sideways.

Fracking has the potential to change the face of the American energy industry because it is a way of accessing natural gas that can then be used for energy. Relying on fracking could detach American dependency on other sources of energy. The US has over 200 years of supply of natural gas buried underneath the ground, and this supply would not be able to be accessed without the process of fracking. Fracking is currently the only way possible to unlock the millions and millions of barrels of oil and hundreds of years’ worth of natural gas to be used by Americans as an alternate source of energy.

Substances that can be extracted through fracking include petroleum, shale gas, tight gas and coal seam gas. These substances are found thousands of feet under the earth’s surface, and hydraulic fracturing greatly increases the rate at which these valuable substances can be extracted and used.

Why is Fracking Necessary?

Natural gas and oil that can be used to produce energy is usually found in subterranean natural reservoirs, which are generally located in rock formations of porous sandstone, limestone, dolomite rocks, shale rocks or coal beds. The issue is that when gas is found so far beneath the surface of the earth, there is generally not enough accessibility into these reservoirs to make extraction possible or cost efficient. Additionally, there is usually not enough reservoir pressure to allow natural gas and oil to flow up from the reservoir up to the surface at a fast enough rate to make it worth it. By making conductive fractures in the rocks, it creates a path that connects a larger volume of the reservoir to the drilled well, thus allowing the substance to flow to the surface.

How Fracking Works

Fracking is the last step in the drilling process for natural gas and oil. Here’s how it works:

A hole is drilled, 4 miles total. Then, the drillers go back into the hole with about 5 million gallons of drinking water or freshwater, a million pounds of proppant sand (sand that will keep an induced hydraulic fracture open during the extraction process), and a little bit of a chemical which acts as a lubricant to get the sand into the rock formation. When these materials hit the brittle rock formation that holds within it the natural gas or oil these materials crack the formation, creating lots of little fissures. These fissures then provide a passageway for the trapped oil and natural gas to travel into the drilled hole (the well) and up to the surface, where it can then be manufactured into a usable form of energy.

Brief History of Fracking in the US

Hydraulic fracturing was first used in 1947, in Kansas. In 1998, the first modern fracturing technology, known as horizontal slickwater fracturing was used, in Texas. However, even in the 1860s, fracturing was already used by oil producers in the US to create shallow, rock oil, water or gas wells. Originally, either liquid or solidified nitroglycerin was used to fracture the rocks, and in the 1930s acid was employed as a non-explosive fluid to create wells in the rocks. By 1949, the modern horizontal tight fracking techniques had been introduced into widespread usage in America, and since then it has been used for extraction in over a million oil and natural gas wells in the US.

In the 1970s, after much technological research and development funded by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, hydraulic fracturing was able to be applied to shale gas deposits in order to extract natural gas from shale, or tight sandstone formations. This is where slickwater fracturing came about. Slickwater fracturing is the process by which chemicals are added to the water to increase its flow into the shale. The invention and subsequent widespread application of slickwater fracturing allowed for the economically sound extraction of shale gas to be used as an alternate source of energy in the US.

Other Uses of Fracking

Hydraulic fracturing was developed to increase the flow of oil and gas from wells deep beneath the surface of earth for use as energy, but it has other uses as well. For instance, it can also be used to stimulate groundwater wells. It is also sometimes used in mining, as a method of causing rocks to cave, as well as a means of enhancing waste remediation processes, such as hydrocarbon waste or spills. Additionally, it is applied in waste disposal, as a means of injecting waste into rock formations far beneath the surface of the earth. It can also be used to measure the stress in the earth, which can cause earthquakes. Another use for fracking is in producing geothermal energy; in other words, the process of fracking can be used to extract heat from the earth that can be used in energy production. Lastly, it is used in geologic sequestration of CO2 to increase injection rates.

Environmental Concerns

One of the main environmental concerns with fracking is that when fracking is done through aquifers, it contaminates the drinking water. However, the fracking industry maintains that these concerns are not a problem, for two main reasons:

1)      The fracking is done at a depth of roughly 10,000 feet beneath the surface, whereas the drinking water is only about 500 feet below the earth’s surface. Therefore, the fracking itself is actually occurring thousands of feet away from the drinking water itself, and therefore not connected to the water.

2)       As per governmental regulations, the fracking industry has to set surface casing over the fracking so that it doesn’t contaminate the drinking water. This is done by putting a steel pipe over the fracking that is locked into place with cement. This prevents anything from leaking out into the drinking water.

About Noah Botwinick

Currently attending Yeshiva University in New York. Majoring in political science. I’m passionate about protecting the environment and the world we live in. I believe that sustainable, clean and efficient energy practices hold the key to reversing the damaging effects we’ve had on the earth. In addition, I played on my college basketball team for 2 years and I’m the editor in chief of the YU yearbook. 

• 
• 

The 2012 Farm Bill: How you’re affected

Story by Amanda Azzoli, contributing author for the PeoplePlanetProfitBlog.com

As many of you may or may not know, every 5 years a variety of legislation, commonly referred to as the Farm Bill, expires and requires revision. Despite its misleading nickname, the Farm Bill is not just for farmers. This is a common, incorrect, assumption; one I intend to debunk throughout this article.

So, what is the 2012 Farm Bill?

The 2012 Farm Bill, formally named the “Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012,” covers 12 major areas that apply to our environment and livelihood. Each area covered in the bill has a specific goal, along with detailed programs to help achieve that goal. Below is a list of each area covered in the bill, along with its goal.

• Commodities Programs
  • Programs that strive to end direct payments, strengthen crop insurance, and encourage innovative risk management approaches for farmers
•  Conservation Programs
  • Programs that ensure a safe and abundant food supply, clean water, and a thriving wild life
• Trade Programs
  • Programs that focus on opening up new markets and reducing trade barriers
• Nutrition Programs
  • Programs that focus on responsible spending to ensure that those in need receive help
• Credit
  • Programs that work with the 2008 Farm Bill to assist beginning farmers and family farms
• Rural Development
  • Programs that help to rebuild communities and invest in the future to help rural communities thrive
• Research
  • Programs that continue critical research initiatives and create a new nonprofit foundation to support cutting-edge research
• Forestry
  • Programs that work to protect and improve our nations forests, which provide us with clean drinking water, critical wildlife habitat, and recreational outlets for our families
• Energy Programs
  • Programs encouraged to help create jobs, reduce our nations dependency on foreign oil, and explore new opportunities in bio-based manufacturing, advanced biofuels, and renewable energy
• Specialty Crop and Horticulture
  • Programs that support and recognize the diversity of American agriculture and the critical impact its sale has on the economy and as a job creator
• Crop Insurance
  • Programs that strengthen and improve coverage for all commodities and underserved crops
• Miscellaneous
  • Programs that include assisting socially disadvantaged farmers, assisting livestock producers, increasing workforce development
• http://www.ag.senate.gov/issues/farm-bill

Across these 12 areas, there are over 100 programs. Evidently, these programs apply to all of our citizens, not just farmers. In fact, it is estimated that only 20% of the above programs pertain to farmers.

 It is imperative that this assumption is debunked so citizens can become aware of the programs that directly affect them within this bill.

Opportunities and Risks

Another imperative reason for why we need to stay informed about the Farm Bill is because it has the power to create a great deal of opportunity and risk in our country.

In terms of opportunity, the Farm Bill has the power to “revitalize our economy by expanding opportunities to connect farmers and local consumers, removing barriers for beginning farmers, improving the productivity of our workforce by ensuring that all individuals have access to an affordable and healthy diet, and protecting the future quality of our natural resources” (fsepmichigan.org).

However, because of the deficits we face, as well as the current sequestration, certain programs that could be enhanced may be at risk for elimination, due to lack of funding. The termination of certain programs could have a serious effect on our nation. For example, cutting programs concerned with conservation, nutrition, or food aid could affect low-income consumers, our wildlife, as well as the abundance of food supply and clean water. Additionally, cutting programs concerned with energy could affect our environment, and thus, our future.

 Legislation that holds this much power over our lives requires and deserves our undivided attention…

As you can see, the Farm Bill is a fully loaded, complex, conglomerate of programs that affect our economy, environment, and overall quality of life, not just the lives of farmers and their farms. Because many people still assume the latter, it is important that we make an effort to inform those who hold this assumption. We owe it to ourselves, to our environment, and to our future to inform others and to stay aware and informed about the Farm Bill and its programs.

About Amanda Azzoli

Currently completing my degree from the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University. I believe that educating the public on the importance of sustainability in our world today is paramount. I hope to continue my efforts in raising awareness on environmental protection. For the sake of my future children, grandchildren, and all future generations, we must continue to stay well informed. Feel free to follow me here on the PeoplePlanetProfitBlog or on my other websites.

• 
• 

Environmental Considerations: Shampoo

Story by Erin Parfet contributing author for the PeoplePlanetProfitBlog.com

It’s sad that even with a biochemistry degree and (unofficial) chemistry minor with various electives in pharmaceutical chemistry/pharmacy that the ingredients on a garden variety bottle of commercial shampoo sometimes confound even me. These ingredients are not only utilized in shampoo, but other personal care products such as conditioners, facial cleansers, and toothpastes. While one could explore the health effects of such chemical concoctions, there are also environmental implications of washing these down the drain during their respective cleansing processes. Let’s explore some ingredients I found on a random (undisclosed) bottle of shampoo:

Water, sodium laureth sulfate, sodium lauryl sulfate, cocamidopropyl betaine, sodium chloride, citric acid, sodium citrate, fragrance, various extracts, polyethylene (PEG)-60, sodium benzoate, tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), methylparaben, propylparaben, yellow 5, orange 4, violet 2

Water and sodium chloride (similar to table salt basically) seem harmless enough.

Sodium laureth sulfate and sodium lauryl sulfate have detergent-like properties, and detergents can affect the composition of interactions between water-soluble and water-insoluble components of a molecule. Think of water-water as soluble, and water-oil as insoluble. Molecules have specific arrangements and interactions between water-soluble and water-insoluble components to sustain proper molecule functioning, and thus ultimately life. This is true whether human life, aquatic life, or plant life. Now after your shower, sodium laureth sulfate in your shampoo is washed down the drain. Who is to say some of this water does not end up affecting marine life, whether it be fish or aquatic plants whose cells are not designed to be disrupted by a detergent agent?

The parabens in general (methylparaben and propylparaben) are antifungal agents. While we don’t want our shampoo bottle to grow fungus, consider the implications of an antifungal agent finding its way into nature and interrupting the normal growth of fungus needed in natural ecosystems.

Yellow 5: derived from coal tar. Do we want coal tar derivatives in our waterways and ecosystems?

Fragrance: how nonspecific. This could be a lot of compounds, so this one is hard to assess without more information.

This isn’t an exhaustive analysis, but enough hopefully to get one thinking.

Just think, if these chemicals have effects on human health, what about the wildlife that is exposed to such chemicals when runoff drains into our lakes, rivers, or other waterways? What about the untold effects of these chemicals not only on aquatic life, but perhaps in terms of altering the pH of soil or water such that growth of native species is inhibited due to un-ideal conditions? What happens when runoff containing personal product A mixes with runoff with personal product B? The ingredients may be slightly different between products A and B leading to who knows what potential chemical reactions. Multiply this by the number of products available on the market and consider the number of people utilizing such an array of products. The end result is literally a chemical brew with who knows what byproducts from untold numbers of side reactions, and the effects on both health and the environment are hard to quantify, or sometimes, even qualify.

Food for thought.

About Erin Parfet

I am a graduate of Kansas State University with a degree in biochemistry,
with a special interest in agricultural and environmental issues. I believe we need to protect and respect our planet, while simultaneously promoting human and animal health and well-being.

• 
• 

Beef Production and Greenhouse Gases

Story by Noah Botwinick, contributing author for the PeoplePlanetProfitBlog.com.

                                                                                    Beef Production and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Background of Beef Production in the US

Beef cattle production represents the largest individual single portion of US agriculture today. In fact, roughly 35% of all farms in the US are beef-producing farms. The U.S. beef industry is made up of more than 1 million businesses, farms and ranches, and there are more than 800,000 ranchers and cattle producers in the United States. The retail equivalent value of the U.S. beef industry in 2011 was $79 billion and total U.S. beef consumption in the same year was 25.6 billion pounds. The value of US cattle and calf production in 2011 was $45.2 billion, and total US beef production measured in commercial carcass weight in 2011 was 26.29 billion pounds. In 2012, 90.8 million cows were produced.

Negative Impacts of Beef Production

Producing all this beef leaves a large carbon footprint on the environment. According to the National Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the meat industry is responsible for approximately 18 percent of the 36 billion tons of “CO2-equivelant” greenhouse gases that are emitted into the atmosphere on a yearly basis. To put this figure in perspective, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, electricity generation is responsible for 33% of total greenhouse gas emissions; transportation is responsible for 26%, industrial use accounts for roughly 11%, and residential and commercial uses are responsible for about 8%. According to the FAO, the amount of greenhouse gases that are produced in order to make half a pound of hamburger meat is equivalent to the amount of gases that are released when driving a 3,000 pound car for 10 miles.

Some of the adverse environmental effects of the beef production industry include:

-          Deforestation: Producing large amounts of beef requires large amount of cattle, and large amounts of cattle requires large amounts of land. Additionally, asides for just the land required for grazing, the beef industry also takes up huge amounts of land to grow the crops used to make feed for the cattle. As a result, the land used for beef production purposes takes up almost a third of the earth’s total land surface. Making all this land usable for beef production requires clearing away large areas of land, lots of which was previously occupied by forests.

• In Brazil, for instance, an average of 19,368 square kilometers of the Amazon rainforest was cut down every year between 2000 and 2007 to produce land to for cattle to graze on.
• This has serious negative effects on biodiversity and introduces new, deadly diseases into the human population through zoonosis.

-          Desertification and Soil Erosion: Each animal that is allowed to graze consumes roughly 10,800 pounds of vegetation a year, in addition to the vegetation and soil that is trampled and ruined by the 24 pounds of force per square inch from the animals’ hooves. As a result of these effects, cattle production is quickly transforming usable land into desert in America and elsewhere around the globe.

• According to a UN report from 1991, 685 million acres of usable land in the western US is becoming ruined by overgrazing and other problems. Approximately a third of the topsoil in the US has been lost as a result of overgrazing and raising crops to feed livestock, and about seven billion tons of soil in the US has already become eroded, mostly as a result of overgrazing and planting crops to feed cattle and other animals. According to the Worldwatch Institute, 35 pounds of American topsoil becomes eroded just to produce one pound of feedlot steak.

-          Water Scarcity: In the US, an estimated 50% of the total used water goes to provide drinking water for cattle and other livestock and for growing feed for cattle. As a result, US freshwater reserves have become significantly reduced, and water shortages have become severe, particularly in the Western US.

• It takes hundreds of gallons of water to produce just one pound of grain-fed steak.

-          Water and Air Pollution: The main non-point source of water pollution in the US is organic waste that comes from cattle and other livestock, pesticides, agricultural salts, chemical fertilizers and sediments.

• Cattle can produce an estimated 1 billion tons of organic waste per year, and the average feedlot steer make more than 47 pounds of manure every day. There are approximately 42,000 feedlots in the US, and the average 10,000 animal feedlot can create 500,000 pounds of manure in 24 hours.
• Large amounts of this manure is stored in manure lagoons, the runoff and leaching from which can end up surface and groundwater and pollute nearby drinking water. The runoff of manure contains nitrogen and phosphorus and can cause eutrophication and dead zones from increased algae production in water. Additionally, the manure emits ammonia into the air, which can cause respiratory diseases when inhaled.

-          Global Warming: As mentioned, cattle and beef production is a major producer of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane, all of which contribute significantly to global warming. This comes from burning forests to create grazing land for cattle and from burning large quantities of agricultural waste from feed crops.

• For every 55 square feet of rain forest that is cleared for grazing, roughly 500 pounds of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere.
• Carbon dioxide is also generated by the fuel that is used in the mechanized agricultural production of feed crops for cattle and other livestock; considering that about 70 percent of the grain produced in the US is used for animal feed, this is a lot of carbon dioxide emissions.
• Petrochemical fertilizers are used to produce feed crops for grain-fed cattle, and this generates nitrous oxide, which accounts for 6 percent of the earth’s greenhouse gases.
• Another major contributor to the earth’s greenhouse gases is methane, much of which is produced from cattle belches and flatulation. One methane molecule traps almost 25 times as much solar heat as a molecule of carbon dioxide, and roughly 60 million tons of methane are produced each year just from cattle alone.

-          Antibiotic Resistance: Many cattle are confined to small living spaces and are fed a diet of corn, which is not their natural food. They are often treated with antibiotics to keep them healthy and to promote growth. Roughly 70% of all antibiotics in the US are given to livestock for these purposes. The issue is that widespread use of antibiotic results in the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which is increasingly becoming a health problem both in the US and abroad.

Efforts to Decrease Negative Impacts

As the human population continues to increase, so does the need for meat. As a result, the US and other countries are constantly raising more cattle and clearing more land. If beef producers continue their current practices, negative impacts on the earth will be devastating. According to a report by the FAO, the environmental damage that comes from livestock may double by the year 2050. Fortunately, there have been several measures taken to reduce these adverse effects from the beef industry.

-          The government of Brazil is undertaking efforts to reduce its rate of deforestation by 80% in the next 7 years by making laws that require landowners, branches of government and business to maintain up to 80% of native vegetation on private lands in the Amazon region. Brazil is also working to create management plans for the land that is better for the environment.

-          If managed properly, manure can be used as an important source of nutrients and organic matter when used as a fertilizer.

-          Another reform that would be beneficial for the environment is the intensification of the cattle industry. This would lead to less land being used to produce the same amount of beef. This would produce less greenhouse gases, use less fossil fuels, waste less land and use up less water. Intensification is implemented through Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs.

-          If cattle grazing is properly managed, it can actually have positive environmental effects on native herbs and forbs. By properly managing grazing lands through managed intensive rotational grazing and grazing at low intensities, it can lead to increased recapture of carbon dioxide, fewer ammonia emissions into the atmosphere, reduced soil erosion, better air quality as well as less water pollution.

-          To reduce methane emissions, management methods include genetic selection, immunization, changing the livestock’s diet and grazing management. Although cattle that eat forage emit more methane than cattle that are fed grain, methane emissions from forage-fed cattle are offset by the increased carbon recapture of grazing pastures.

About Noah Botwinick

Currently attending Yeshiva University in New York. Majoring in political science. I’m passionate about protecting the environment and the world we live in. I believe that sustainable, clean and efficient energy practices hold the key to reversing the damaging effects we’ve had on the earth. In addition, I played on my college basketball team for 2 years and I’m the editor in chief of the YU yearbook. 

• 
• 

US LNG Exports

Story by Noah Botwinick, contributing author for the PeoplePlanetProfitBlog.com.

                                                                                                       LNG: America’s Key Export

                                                                                                                       What is LNG?

LNG, or Liquefied Natural Gas, is a form of natural gas that has been converted into a liquid form in order to make it easily transported or stored. The benefit of converting gas into this form is that LNG generally occupies about 1/600^th the space of natural gas in its regular, gaseous state. LNG will not damage objects it comes into contact with and is non-toxic, odorless and colorless. To transform gas into its liquefied state, gas is first extracted; then it is transported to a plant where it is purified by having water, oil, mud, unwanted gases and traces of mercury removed. Next, the gas is cooled down until becomes a liquid, which is then stored in storage tanks that can be easily transported.

 LNG as an Export

LNG is more cost-efficient to transport across long distances where pipelines don’t exist because the energy density of it is less than that of diesel fuel. To transport the LNG, specially created cryogenic sea vessels that maintain very cold temperatures or cryogenic road tankers are used. After the LNG is shipped to the natural gas markets, it is turned back into gas and distributed to users via pipelines as natural gas. The need for expensive cryogenic tanks to store and transport LNG has kept LNG from being more widely used in energy markets. The largest LNG operating plant in the world is now in Qatar, and the next 6 largest plants can be found in Algeria.

Many new LNG plants are currently in the process of being discussed as to whether or not to build them in the US, but such ideas have been met with resistance from local governments in the regions where these plants would be built. The two main reasons for opposition to such plants are the potential dangers involved, as well as the fact that those in the area don’t stand to gain anything from such plants being constructed in their region.

Brief Background of LNG as an Export

In 1970, Global LNG trade was three billion cubic meters, and by 2011 it had exploded to 331 billion cubic meters. In 2004, LNG made up approximately seven percent of the world’s natural gas demand. The global trade in LNG has increased at a rate of 7.4 percent per year from 1995 to 2005 and is expected to continue to increase significantly in the near future. 19 countries currently export LNG.

Until the 1990s, LNG demand came mostly from Japan, Korea and Taiwan, while LNG supply was controlled mostly by the Pacific Basin. However, as a global interest in using natural gas-fired combined cycle generating units for electric power generation increased, there arose an inability of North American and North Sea natural gas supplies to meet the growing demand. As a result, the regional markets for LNG grew and new Atlantic Basin and Middle East suppliers joined the market. By 2008, there were 15 countries that exported LNG to 17 importing countries. The three biggest LNG exporters in 2007 were Qatar, Malaysia, and Indonesia and the three biggest LNG importers at this time were Japan, South Korea and Spain. Total LNG trade volumes grew from 140 metric million tons in 2005 to 158 metric million tons in 2006, 165 metric million tons in 2007, and 172 metric million tons in 2008. This number has continued to rise since then and is expected to continue to in the future.

Today, the following countries export LNG:

Algeria

Australia

Brunei

New Guinea

Egypt

Indonesia

Libya

Malaysia

Nigeria

Norway

Oman

Qatar

The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago

United Arab Emirates

US

Who is Importing LNG?

The first countries to import LNG were the UK and France in 1964, when they imported it from Algeria. Since then, the following countries have begun importing LNG as well:

Belgium

China

Dominican Republic

France

Greece

India

Italy

Japan

Mexico

Portugal

Puerto Rico

South Korea

Spain

Taiwan

Turkey

UK

US

                                                                                                        How much LNG does the US Export?

The US is projected to sell 50 metric million tons of LNG per year by the year 2020, which will account for approximately 10 percent of the projected world market. By contrast, Qatar is currently producing 77 million tons per year, and Australia is expected to pass Qatar by 2020. According to the US Energy Department, increased US LNG exports would likely result in a net positive for the US, accounting for approximately $30 billion in trade revenue. This is because gas demand for electric generation, transportation, and as an industrial feedstock is increasing. However, perhaps the most significant dynamic with the potential to drive natural gas prices up in the foreseeable future is a growing push to export LNG from the US. That factor has recently greatly increased, with numerous LNG export requests having been filed with the US Department ofEnergy in the past few years.

According to the Energy Information Administration, total natural gas consumption for 2011 in the US was 24.3 trillion cubic feet, and 2012 consumption was about 26 trillion cubic feet. Since mid-August of this past year, US companies have filed for permits with the US Department of Energy to export 7.8 trillion cubic feet of LNG, which amounts to approximately 30% of current total domestic consumption in the US. Total requests at that point equaled 11.2 trillion cubic feet, plus the 5.3 trillion cubic feet of requests requested last year, which amounts to roughly 16.5 trillion cubic feet. That’s over 60% of current domestic consumption.

Although not all of these planned facilities will be built, some certainly will because the economics are compelling and there is a strong market for it that constantly increases as energy needs increase around the world. India’s LNG import capacity is expected to greatly increase in the coming years and in a country of over a billion inhabitants, with their enormous energy problems, their needs should continue to increase.  Additionally, Japan has recently shut down 52 out of its 54 nuclear reactors that produced energy, and companies in Tokyo are looking to make long-range gas contracts to supply gas-fired generators with US gas companies.

Right now, most of the LNG imported by these and other Asian countries will come from countries other than the US; there are 18 countries that export the gas to 25 importing nations. Qatar currently supplies almost a third of all global LNG, with the US just .1% of total LNG imports. However, due to new pipelines, multiple vendors, and world class shale reserves the US is likely to be transformed into a more serious exporter of global LNG.  If permits can be secured, export growth could occur relatively quickly.

Although it is expensive to produce and transport LNG, in the long run, supply and demand are predicted to reach an equilibrium in the energy market, thereby making it cost effective to increase LNG exports. In recognition of this increasing market, export requests have been increased to 1.25 times greater than the amount that has been submitted in the previous two years.

About Noah Botwinick

Currently attending Yeshiva University in New York. Majoring in political science. I’m passionate about protecting the environment and the world we live in. I believe that sustainable, clean and efficient energy practices hold the key to reversing the damaging effects we’ve had on the earth. In addition, I played on my college basketball team for 2 years and I’m the editor in chief of the YU yearbook. 

• 
• 

Top 10 Reasons to Get a Sustainability Audit

Story by Noah Botwinick, contributing author for the PeoplePlanetProfitBlog.com.
What is a Sustainability Audit?

An audit is a systematic evaluation process that is directed at verifying whatever facility, structure or organization getting the audit’s status is in regard to specific criteria. According to the professional association for EHS auditors, an audit is, “a systematic, documented process of objectively collecting and evaluating factual information in order to verify a site or organization’s… status with respect to specific, predetermined criteria (Auditing Roundtable, 1997).” The audit criteria are explicit measures or requirements, such as regulations, standards, performance indicators, metrics, principles, guidelines and corporate directions, that the auditor uses to evaluate the information gathered during the audit process. A sustainability audit is a type of audit that looks into the effectiveness of implemented sustainability programs measured against specific criteria. In other words, a sustainability audit is a way of learning about your facility’s or company’s energy practices and seeing how they compare to other companies and against official standards.

…a sustainability audit is a way of learning about your facility’s or company’s energy practices and seeing how they compare to other companies and against official standards.

 Why Should You Get a Sustainability Audit?

1)      Save Money:

 >  Save money on your electricity bills by pinpointing areas where energy is being wasted.
>  Many organizations and corporations have been undergoing sustainability audits because there has been evidence that increased financial performance has often resulted from improving performance in environmental areas.
>  Additionally, a company showing that it cares about sustainable practices attracts support from socially responsible investing groups.

2)      Preventative Measure:

In homes, buildings and facilities, an energy audit can help discover structural and safety problems such as rot and mold, before they lead to more costly damage.

3)      Internal management need:

A company looking to manage business risk and opportunity, support internal decision making, and/or build trust within various stakeholder communities can get a sustainability audit.

4)      Compliance with Government Regulations:

Getting a sustainability audit can help a corporation or business understand where it needs to fix its sustainable practices in order to comply with government regulations, and can help them deal with these issues.

5)      Prioritize:

Getting a sustainability audit can help a company, business or homeowner understand cost-effective improvement opportunities. By seeing all the issues laid out with their respective solutions,

6)      Home Improvements:

>  Make your home more comfortable and pleasant by figuring out how to properly heat or cool areas that are difficult to maintain at proper temperatures.
> Identify what cheaper options are available for heating and fuel bills.

7)      Increase Resale Value:

By auditing your home or business and fixing energy issues or installing energy upgrades and improvements, the resale value of the home or facility is increased; how much depends on the nature and extent of the improvements.

8)      Demands from shareholders, employees and financial institutions:

More and more companies are being pushed from stakeholders to look into a broader range of sustainable development issues in regards to an organization’s production. Although companies and businesses have been publishing their own reports regarding the sustainability of their own practices, stakeholders have been demanding audits because they represent an impartial, third-party investigation and report of a corporation’s sustainable practices. Thus, getting an audit improves the credibility of a company in the eyes of the stakeholders.

9)       Comparing Energy Practices:

By conducting a sustainability audit, a company can compare its practices to other companies within the same industry to understand where it stands and if further improvements are needed and in what areas. An audit enables this comparison because it measures everyone using the same impartial standards, thus making comparisons useful.

10)  Broaden Your Thinking:

A sustainability audit will likely identify dozens of initiatives in areas of a business previously never considered. By having an audit conducted, you will discover areas in your practices that can be improved upon that you didn’t even know about.

About Noah Botwinick

Currently attending Yeshiva University in New York. Majoring in political science. I’m passionate about protecting the environment and the world we live in. I believe that sustainable, clean and efficient energy practices hold the key to reversing the damaging effects we’ve had on the earth. In addition, I played on my college basketball team for 2 years and I’m the editor in chief of the YU yearbook. 

• 
• 

5 Ways To Engage Employees in The Sustainability Movement

Story by Amanda Azzoli, contributing author for the PeoplePlanetProfitBlog.com.  The Sustainability Movement has become one of the most important and popular trends in today’s society. Because of this popularity and importance, Sustainability has also become a critical component for any successful business. In order to stay innovative, profitable and relevant, businesses must incorporate sustainability into their core culture and values. However, in order for any company to be successful and stay committed to this endeavor, they all need to have employees that are engaged in the movement. The reason for this is because: Employees are the life of an organization. They make up a company’s structure and they embody the company’s culture and principles. An organization is dependent on its employees because, without employees, an organization cannot survive.

Employees are the life of an organization. They make up a company’s structure and they embody the company’s culture and principles. An organization is dependent on its employees because, without employees, an organization cannot survive.

This article will discuss important fundamental rules for engaging an employee as well as examine an organization that has proven to be a leading contributor in the sustainability movement.

             Because employee engagement is such a large component in the success of any organization, I wanted to review  some basic techniques for engaging an employee. These techniques are important because effective communication is required in both our social lives and professional lives. Proper communication is often undervalued and, in some cases, can even be the solution to a failing business or relationship.

The list below is not exhaustive. It includes the techniques that, through my own research, I believe to be the most effective. The techniques for successful employee engagement are as follows:

1.  Be specific and realistic with the company’s vision

2.  Set measurable achievements with a target deadline.

Measuring employees or an organization’s, achievements motivates employees to work towards a certain goal, within a certain time frame. This eliminates uncertainly, which helps employees stay focused.

3.  Choose aspects of the overall goal that are most important.

Decide which aspects of the overall goal are most important and start achieving those.

4.  Provide a detailed explanation of why improvement is needed

Explain what the benefits are, both short-term and long-term

5.  Most important: Treat employees as important assets

Remember, the employees are the veins of the company, working together to keep the organization alive. Treat them as such.

A great example of an organization that has succeeded in employee engagement and has stayed committed to the sustainability movement is General Electric, a company ranked #1 by Forbes Magazine for Most Sustainable Company. In order to remain committed to sustainability, GE has established a division within the company, GE Citizenship, which is dedicated to solving the world’s most difficult sustainability issues. GE Citizenship focuses on issues regarding the people, planet, and economy. As stated on the GE’s website, GE Citizenship “focuses on areas where we can make a difference, either through the way we operate within the business, the marketplace, or through our broader influence in society” (gecitizenship.com).

GE Citizenship continuously collaborates with its customers, suppliers, regulators, industry bodies, and collaborators around the world. The Citizenship division has created both Advisory Boards and Advisory Panels that focus on sustainability issues, product development, and on ways to “sharpen” the company’s vision. GE acknowledges that trends and issues are ever evolving; therefore, GE needs to constantly change in order to ensure that it is meeting its goals and providing effective service wherever needed.

These panels and boards help GE stay committed and engaged because they not only provide information to the external environment about GE efforts, but they also provide GE’s internal environment, its employees, with a forum where they can raise issues, or dilemmas faced by other corporations, both domestic and global.

Another way GE keeps its employees engaged is by recognizing their value in the culture. For example, on the company website, the first sentence under GE’s Principles reads, “Our people are our biggest asset,” and goes on to say, “a legacy of good citizenship runs deep in our culture” (gecitizenship.com). GE recognizes that its employees are crucial to the fruition of the company’s goals and principles, and demonstrates this by listing its employee value as its first principle. GE understands that without its employees’ commitment and engagement, the company mission is unattainable.

One additional way GE keeps its employees engaged is by encouraging volunteer work. Employees not only volunteer as individuals, but they also volunteer during GE sponsored events. These company sponsored events are an integral part of the GE’s success because they promote teamwork and help foster bonds between employees.

GE is a great example of a company that has successfully committed to sustainability within its workforce, as well as successfully motivated its employees to be engaged in the cause. GE remains successful because, in addition to sustainability and its employees, GE values integrity and transparency. The company is very proud, and therefore, is public about its efforts to better the planet, which demonstrates confidence and honesty.  GE is proud of the work its employees produce and wants to share it with others. GE’s employees are driven by ethical and sustainable values that continue to benefit the company, as well as the planet.

About Amanda Azzoli

Currently completing my degree from the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University. I believe that educating the public on the importance of sustainability in our world today is paramount. I hope to continue my efforts in raising awareness on environmental protection. For the sake of my future children, grandchildren, and all future generations, we must continue to stay well informed. Feel free to follow me here on the PeoplePlanetProfitBlog or on my other websites.

• 
• 

How Supply Side Energy is Lowering Rates for Americans

Story by Noah Botwinick, contributing author for the PeoplePlanetProfitBlog.com.

Brief History of Supply Side Energy in America:

During the early 20^th century in the US, the market of energy suppliers was dominated by a few large companies. This system essentially had the characteristics of a monopoly; the energy companies could charge whatever prices they wanted and if you wanted energy, you had to comply with their demands. In this system, energy companies had no pressing incentive to develop more efficient energy transmission technologies. In the middle of the 20^th century, this system became largely federal and state-government regulated, so again, you didn’t really have much of a choice as to who was supplying you with your energy needs. It wasn’t until the 1990s that the energy market was largely deregulated, paving the way for independent companies to begin supplying energy to Americans.

The opening up of the supply-side of energy to independent businesses re-introduced competition into the market, as energy companies fought with one another for customers. Since customers could now choose who supplied them with electricity and natural gas, these supply companies began looking for ways to lower their prices so as to attract customers, as in any business. The way these companies sought and are seeking to supply and transmit their energy to their customers at a cheaper rate is by looking to become more energy efficient in their energy generation and transmission.

Energy Efficiency in Producing Energy

Becoming energy efficient is important for any company or business, but it is particularly critical if your business involves the production and transmission of energy. Energy production is the process of making the electricity itself, and energy transmission refers to bringing that electricity to the user in a form that the user can use. Thus, becoming more energy efficient in the supply-side of electricity means to waste less energy in the production of energy and to waste less energy in bringing that energy to the consumer. Competition within this market has led to the utilization of certain technologies that can cut down on the amount of energy lost, specifically through the uses of renewable energy and green products.

Additionally, in the early systems of the electric power industry, electricity had a relatively low voltage and thus couldn’t be transmitted very far away from the electrical power plant. Thus, even if someone developed a more efficient way of producing power and was offering customers electricity at a cheaper rate, only the people living within a close vicinity of that power plant could reap the benefits of this cheaper power. Now, however, due to newer technologies such as steam turbines, power can be transmitted to customers that are much farther away. Therefore, independent energy companies can develop ways of producing electricity more efficiently and can offer this product to customers across the country.

These power companies that produce and transmit electricity more efficiently are also able to so easily provide power to customers at a cheaper rate because of existing delivery methods. Such delivery methods generally consist of medium-voltage power lines, substations, pole-mounted transformers and low voltage distribution wiring. Using the same power lines that currently provide electricity to homes and businesses, energy companies can provide power from their more energy efficient plants to any home or business without having to build new delivery methods. It’s like if you added a more efficient central heating system into your home to replace the existing heat source, the heat would still flow through your house through the same heating system; the only difference would be that the heat itself now costs less. This is the concept behind changing energy providers; it is simply reducing the cost of the energy you pay for without changing anything else.

 Changes in Energy Production Methods: Renewable Energy

Traditional energy supplies come from non-renewable energy sources. Non-renewable energy is energy that is taken from sources that are of finite quality and will, at some point in the near future, run out. Energy that comes from non-renewable energy sources has detrimental environmental effects and contributes to global warming, according to most scientists. This form of energy, which comes from fossil fuels, natural gas, oil and coal, cannot be regenerated within a short period of time. Also, because fossil fuels are limited and are becoming rapidly depleted, prices for fossil fuels are always on the rise. Unfortunately, fossil fuels also have benefits as an energy source, and that’s why they are used so prevalently as energy sources around the globe. Non-renewable energy sources can produce energy cheaply, and fossil fuels can also generate large amounts of electricity. Additionally, they are readily available for use and can be converted to energy relatively simply. Nonetheless, if we continue to rely solely on non-renewable energy sources for our energy, there will be significant negative effects on the global environment, not to mention that if we continue to do so we will run out of these finite sources in less than 100 years, according to many scientists.

Luckily, many are now looking to another source of energy. Today, roughly 16% of the earth’s energy comes from renewable energy sources.

Roughly 16% of the earth’s energy comes from renewable energy sources.

Renewable energy is energy that comes from natural resources, such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, and geothermal heat. The reason it’s called renewable is because energy that comes from these sources can be produced over and over. There are many benefits of using renewable energy. First of all, they are plentiful; in other words, they come from sources that don’t run out. They are also the cleanest form of energy, in that, unlike energy derived from coal or oil, energy derived from these sources has low carbon emissions and doesn’t pollute the atmosphere. Another benefit of using renewable energy sources to provide energy is that they are available in every country; thus, the US wouldn’t have to rely on third-party countries for oil and could avoid price hikes, oil embargoes and being coerced by other countries that we rely on for oil. Renewable energy sources will be cheaper in the long run as traditional sources of energy begin to run out and prices skyrocket. Forms of renewable energy include wind power, hydro-electric power, solar energy, biomass, geothermal energy, tidal energy and nuclear energy.

Solar Panels at a Solar Energy Plant, used to generate clean energy

What are the Economic Benefits of Supply Side Energy?  

Asides from the environmental, health and political benefits of using renewable energy sources, there are significant economic benefits in switching energy suppliers. By switching energy suppliers, all you’re doing is switching who pumps the electricity into the wires that are already connected to your house. The only cost you’re paying is simply for the electricity itself. Therefore, if energy suppliers can produce the energy at cheaper cost than companies that rely on non-renewable sources of energy, the consumer can benefit from this lower cost simply by switching energy companies. When picking what energy supplier to use, it’s important to understand how they produce their energy. This is because renewable energy has many benefits, both for the individual, the state and for the earth. Here are some reasons highlighting the importance of where we get our energy from.

• Generally, switching your home to an energy company that relies on renewable sources of energy can result in savings of just over one cent per kilowatt per hour. Doesn’t sound like a lot; however, considering that according to the department of energy the average household in the US uses approximately 10,656 kilowatt-hours per year according to the Department of Energy, these savings can amount to significant amounts, especially for a business, especially because they require no changes in quality of the product and only require enough effort to make a phone-call.
• Also, while energy companies that get their energy from non-renewable sources will have to raise their prices as energy sources become depleted in the future, customers who receive their energy from non-renewable energy-source generators can enjoy fewer fluctuations in price. Additionally, because energy from renewable energy sources isn’t based on a finite resource, the pricing is much less susceptible to increased demand, decreased supply or other standard market fluctuations. Not only that, but because renewable energy sources are everywhere, the pricing of this energy is also not affected by control or supply disruptions in external locations.
•  Another economic benefit of renewable energy is that because some of these technologies, such as solar power units, can be placed in or near the building that is using the energy itself, it can cut down on transmission costs. It can also cut down on the amount of power lines required in a neighborhood, and allows existing power lines to last longer because their load can be reduced. It also cuts down on the amount of power lost through transmission.
•   Building local renewable energy plants and new clean energy-based facilities also creates new jobs in the US and sparks economic development in areas where these plants are being built. They employ local construction crews, deal with local banks and hire local workers. It also helps farmers and other landowners, because energy producers often pay to utilize their land for wind turbines and other forms of renewable energy production. Renewable energy production plants also contribute significant amounts of taxes to their regional governments.

Other Benefits of Supply Side Energy:

•  Increased fuel diversity by relying on alternate sources of energy
• Transmission reliability from distributed generation, which allows collection of energy from many sources and has less negative environmental impacts as well as improved security of the energy supply.
• Avoided future investment in fossil-fuel generating capacity
• Reduced price of wholesale electricity
•  Reduced price volatility by relying on alternative sources of fuel, so that a disruption in one energy resource does not significantly raise the price of electricity
• Reduced fossil-fuel prices from more competition in the energy market
• Reduced transmission congestion and losses, which is when there is a shortage of transmission capacity to supply the waiting energy-users, because the supply side energy industry is building new energy generation plants

How Clean Distributed Generation can Save Money:

Distributed generation refers to power generation at the area where the energy is being used, as opposed to at the area of generation. By generating power at the location itself that is using the energy, it saves on transmission costs, complexity, interdependencies, and inefficiencies that come with electricity distribution. Generally, distributed generation utilizes combustion generators, which is an unclean method of generating energy. There are systems of distributed energy distribution, such as harnessing energy from solid oxide fuel cells, which can produce clean energy around the clock at a low cost, and save money over the long run.

What are Supply Side Clean Energy Policies?

Supply-side clean energy policies and programs affect the nature of the usable energy that is generated from the energy generators. In other words, they alter the composition of energy resources or change the operational characteristics of the energy supply system. Supply-side policy measures generally support the development of utility-scale renewable energy and combined heat and power applications, as well as clean distributed generation.

What are the Economic Benefits of Supply Side Energy Policies?

The direct effects of supply-side initiatives are the costs of manufacturing, installing and operating the renewable energy or combined heat and power equipment supported by the initiative, as well as the energy savings and possible reduced energy supply costs from fuel substitution among entities participating in the supply-side program and their customers. (Combined heat and power generation, other known as cogeneration, is the use of a heat engine or a power station to generate both electricity and useful heat at the same time.) The direct costs and savings of renewable energy, combined heat and power and distributed generated initiatives include displacement savings and waste heat saving. Displacement savings refers to money saved by utilities from the displacement of traditional generation, such as reduced purchases of fossil fuels as well as decreased operation and maintenance costs from energy generation resources, while waste heat savings is the money saved by utilities or other businesses using waste heat in combined heat and power applications for both heating and cooling purposes.

About Noah Botwinick

Currently attending Yeshiva University in New York. Majoring in political science. I’m passionate about protecting the environment and the world we live in. I believe that sustainable, clean and efficient energy practices hold the key to reversing the damaging effects we’ve had on the earth. In addition, I played on my college basketball team for 2 years and I’m the editor in chief of the YU yearbook. 

• 
• 

What’s the Deal with Electric Cars?

Story by Karmen Cheung, contributing author for the PeoplePlanetProfitBlog.com. Electric cars were once seen as the preferred cars of choice on city road. The New York Times even stated in 1911 that the electric cars has long been recognized as “ideal” because it was cleaner, quieter and much more economical than gasoline-powered cars. Of course this was in the early 1900’s before the pre-eminence of internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). The lower cost and longer driving range of ICEVs has caused the popularity of electric vehicles to plummet dismally. Despite low demand for electric vehicles, major automakers are making it know that they plan to bring more battery-powered motors to their showrooms.

Chevrolet Volt

General Motors, the biggest American automarket, announced last Tuesday that it would being production of Cadillac ELR, a luxury version of the Chevrolet Volt, the company’s current extended –range plug-in hybrid sedan. Last year, G.M. sold 23,000 Volts in the United States, less than 1 percent of its overall sales and well below their expectations.

Nissan, the Japanese automaker, announced that they plan on offer a new base-model Leaf that is $6,000, or 18 percent, cheaper than the current car. Currently, the Nissan Leaf is the world’s top selling highway-capable electric car, with global sales of 46,000 units by December 2012. Yet last year Nissan only sold 9,800 Leafs in the United States, half of what it had originally projected. Despite the slow sales, Nissan’s chief executive, Carlos Ghosn, is steadfastly sticking to his belief that electric cars can account for 10 percent of all Nissan sales by 2020.

Both Nissan and General Motors hope to lure a wider range of consumers to electric cars through their new vehicles. Though Nissan and General Motors have placed the biggest bests on electric cars, they are not alone. Toyota, Ford Motor Company and BMW are also making small moves towards introducing electric cars into their product line. While the outlook on electric car sales is not optimistic for the next year, maybe this perseverance of major automakers is exactly what we need to get electric cars off the ground. This in combination with Obama’s support of electric car subsidies can increase the attractiveness of electric and plug-in hybrids, especially for more urbanized areas.

In the U.S. 78 percent of commuters travel less than 40 miles round trip, which is well within the range limits of most electric cars. Electric cars, technologically speaking, are more than adequate replacements for gasoline burning vehicles in most circumstances. It is consumer confidence and demand that automakers will need to deal with.

About Karmen Cheung

I’m a New York City native currently attending Yale University focusing on Environmental Studies. I’m a big fan of large cities and good public transportation systems. Recently, I had the amazing opportunity to work with American Wind Association and while I’m not sure where life will take me next, I hope to work on issues of sustainability and corporate social responsibility in the near future. I believe in the power that businesses have and the role they need to play in efforts to create a more sustainable world.

• 
• 

Future Real Life Hunger Games?

Story by Erin Parfet, contributing author for the PeoplePlanetProfitBlog.com. Last spring, I attended a presentation by Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack as part of the Landon Series put on by Kansas State University. He opened generally with how agriculture may appear on many “most useless college majors” lists, and used this as a springboard into how agriculture has a vital role in America’s prosperity and how there is adequate agriculture in this country to self-sustain our own food supply independent of other nations (food security). He touched briefly on the role of agriculture in renewable energy, and fielded questions regarding possible roles of genetically modified products in our food supply.

However, this presentation was last April before the big drought became obvious. The writing should have been on the wall with how mild last winter was.  I remember a weather report on the radio last summer about annual rainfall for northeast Kansas being seven inches below normal at that time, and reflecting on how few springtime thunderstorms there seemed to be compared to years past. It had been 100+ degrees for several consecutive days, and 98 degrees after that seemed gloriously mild. Now here it is, January 2013 in Colorado, and it is a beautiful, sunny fifty-something degrees, and there has been minimal snowfall. Déjà vu? Granted, winter isn’t over, and one cannot complain about getting to sit on the porch in January. However, this sustained warmer January doesn’t seem good in terms of the water supply that may be available this summer, especially if this could potentially be a second summer in a row with subpar moisture levels.

What does this mean not only for our water supply (and not only Coloradoans, but for the country as a whole and for the other states that depend on Colorado River water, most notably highly populated areas such as Phoenix and southern California), but our food supply? Will there be friction between urban and rural areas over this increasingly precious commodity in the future – how do we allocate potentially limited water to people in the cities for drinking and bathing versus limited water to the farms to help produce food to nourish our country and cotton fields that help clothe us?

Agriculture may have a vital role in America’s prosperity and our food security as a nation, but only with adequate hydration.

It doesn’t matter how dedicated our farmers are or how much land is available for a given crop if there is inadequate water to sustain such levels of crops, or if arid conditions fuel wildfires or dust storms that may hinder food production.

For instance, the drought affected the Kansas wheat supply (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/24/us-usa-drought-idUSBRE90N0UO20130124), though neighboring states and non-wheat grains have not been immune. Wheat seems to find its way into seemingly quite a few mainstream foodstuffs, even in foods that one wouldn’t guess it to be in. It isn’t only used in the obvious pastries and pastas, but can be found, for instance, in various sauces or soups as a thickening agent. The beer industry relies on various cereal grains to produce its products, whether it is wheat, barley, sorghum, or otherwise. Soy sauce of all things is most often wheat based.

Midwestern corn is another notable example with potential effects long term (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/31/drought-likely-to-continu_n_2388085.html) between corn production being down a few billion bushels (http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/in-the-news/us-drought-2012-farm-and-food-impacts.aspx) and roles in the food supply, in animal feed, and in ethanol production. If corn needs to be more exclusively diverted to the food supply to sustain life, or to animal feed productions to sustain the livestock needed to contribute to America’s meat, dairy, and poultry needs, efforts within the renewable energy world may be put on hold or outsourced; neither slowing or halting renewable energy research at home meaningfully stimulates the American economy. USDA has compiled some statistics on the extent and impact of the drought, and economic projections at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/in-the-news/us-drought-2012-farm-and-food-impacts.aspx

There are other examples. Wheat and corn are not the only examples, but were selected for their ubiquity in our everyday lives. Head down aisle 4 at your local supermarket, and there is a decent chance that a high percentage of items up will contain wheat or corn, thus meaning corn and wheat shortages potentially affect a large percentage of us as consumers. Corn is especially notable as it utilizes higher amounts of water to grow and cultivate compared to other crops.

Economics 101:

Decreased supply = increased prices

Increased demand = increased prices

As Secretary Vilsack outlined, this country is a breadbasket that can more than adequately feed our people. However, that breadbasket requires water to thrive.

Without adequate winter and spring waters, an entire domino effect of events can affect all of us months or years down the road with potential implications not only on the obvious food and water supplies, but human health, our pocketbooks, and our economy.

About Erin Parfet

I am a graduate of Kansas State University with a degree in biochemistry,
with a special interest in agricultural and environmental issues. I believe we need to protect and respect our planet, while simultaneously promoting human and animal health and well-being.

• 
• 

Harnessing the Power of Magnetism

Story by Noah Botwinick, contributing author for the PeoplePlanetProfitBlog.com.

How do Magnets Work?

Magnets contain within them the power to repel or attract specific objects. Every magnet has a magnetic field that attracts items that contain iron. The space around a magnet is occupied by a magnetic force called a magnetic field, and when a magnetic object is placed within this area surrounding another magnet, it will be acted on by magnetic forces, causing it either move towards or away from the other magnetic object.

This magnetic field is created as a result of moving electrons; the atoms of ferromagnetic materials have their own magnetic field created by the electrons that orbit them, and small groups of atoms orient themselves in the same direction. Each of these groups is called a magnetic domain, and each domain has a north and south pole. When you introduce current into the object, the domains will line up with the external magnetic field; the stronger the external magnetic field, the more domains will align with it. When the current is removed, hard magnetic materials will retain most of their lined-up domains, which creates a strong, permanent magnet.

There are different types of magnets- permanent magnets, which maintain their magnetism for a long time; temporary magnets, which lose their magnetic properties much quicker; and electromagnets, which are magnets created using electricity, whose strength can be altered based on electrical currents that travels through it.

Using the Power of Magnetism:

Magnets contain within them the power to move other objects or to hold objects together.  This property of magnets has made them a powerful asset for humans and has been utilized in many different capacities, for a variety of different uses. The power of magnetism is already employed in many devices used regularly around the world:

• VHS tapes, audio cassettes, floppy disks and hard disks: They all employ different forms of magnetic tape to record information.
• Credit, debit and ATM cards: The magnetic strip found the sides of these cards encode information.
•  TV and computer monitors- Electromagnets are used to guide electrons to the screens in conventional TVs.
• Speakers and microphones- These use a permanent magnet and a current-carrying coil to convert electric energy into mechanical energy.
•  Electric Guitars: Magnetic pickups are used to transduce the vibration of guitar strings into electric current that can then be amplified.
•  The Hammond Organ: Used a similar principle, with rotating tone wheels instead of strings.
• Electric Motors: Some electric motors use a combination of electromagnetic and permanent magnets and convert electric energy into mechanical energy
•  Generators: They convert mechanical energy into electric energy by moving a conductor through a magnetic field.
•  Magnetic resonance imaging: Hospitals use this to find problems in patient’s organs without opening them up.
•  Fastening devices: In the metalworking field, chucks are used to hold objects in place; magnets are also used as a magnetic base, magnetic clamp and the classic refrigerator magnet.
•  Compasses: Using the earth’s magnetic field, a compass uses a magnetized pointer to point north.
•  Art: Vinyl magnetic art is catching on as a popular art form.
•  Jewelry: Necklaces and bracelets often use magnetic clasps or can be made from linked magnets.
•  Tools: Some screwdrivers are magnetized to help attach to small magnetized objects
•  Scrap Operations: Magnets can be used to separate magnetic metals from non-magnetic metals.
•  Auto body tests: Auto bodies can be inspected with a magnet in order to find parts that were repaired using non-magnetic materials.
•  Maglev: Magnetic levitation transportation uses electromagnetic force to suspend, guide and propel vehicles.
•  Cable Connections: Magnets can be used as a failsafe device to prevent damage to cable connections.                                                       – The Magsafe power connection to the Apple MacBook is one such example.

Can the power of magnetism be used to generate renewable electricity as well?

Scientists are trying to use the power of magnetism to design a perpetual motion generator that will, using a magnetic motor design, be able to generate enough electricity to power a house. A perpetual motion generator is based on the concept that magnetic forces can be used to spin a generator fast enough to create usable electricity. There are many different projects that are being researched and designs that are being looked into in the hopes of harnessing the power of magnets to create renewable, clean energy. Here are some:

1)      Magnetically Powered Portable Devices:

1. The tech industry is constantly working to find a better battery or an alternative energy source to extend the life of portable devices. Apple is currently in the process of exploring ways of building a miniature electromagnetic induction system that would be built directly into portable devices, in order to extend the battery life. Apple hopes to use electromagnetic power to create power systems in the iPod, Ipod touch, iPhone, MacBooks, cameras, video recorders and cyclocomputers.

Apple plans to harness power through electromagnetic induction, using printed coils. This would work through one or more moveable magnets placed next to printed coils on a circuit. Movement of the magnets could create an electromotive force across the printed coils, and this force could be used to generate electric power. The magnets could be made to move by the user shaking the device, or simply walking or running while holding the device. Such a system would include application circuitry for using power harnessed by the system. Apple also hopes to be able to store power that has been created by the system, using a power storage circuitry. There are different forms of how to create this electromagnetic induction system that could be used in Apple’s different devices, and Apple is in the process of experimenting and trying to find the one that would work the most effectively and efficiently.

2)      Magnetically Powered Engines:

1. Engines now need fuel to make them run. Scientists are looking into creating an engine that could run without outside fuel; all it would require would be the power of magnetism. By creating a system using opposite poles that constantly repel one another and creates continuous motion, an engine can be created that would run entirely from the power of magnets, which generally don’t lose their magnetic field for about 400 years.

3)      Magnetically Powered Generators:

1. This magnet-run system could be also used in a generator and thus could be used to power anything that can be run via a generator. For instance, a magnetic-run generator attached to a person’s house could potentially create enough electricity to enable the person to never have to pay electric bills again.
2. Mechanical engineers John Christie and Edge Hil and electrician Lou Brits, from Australia, have created a machine that can power a house using a clean, green, permanent, self-sustaining and cheap energy source powered by magnets. The device, called the Lutec 1,000, is more than 500 percent efficient and can produce 24 kilowatts of power per day; the average home uses 14 kilowatts per day. The Lutec 1,000 would not require power lines and does not emit heat, harmful emissions or any airborne matter. The machine is larger but quieter than a conventional generator and could run continuously, having to stop only to replace the battery pack every 5 or so years. Although the device is not yet ready for commercial distribution, now that the technology exists there’s reason to believe it’s only a matter of time until it is able be used all over the globe as a source of renewable energy.

4)      Magnetic motors:

1. A magnetic motor is a device that converts power that was created using magnetism into mechanical force. It usually provides rotary mechanical motion. It is a machine that utilizes the properties of a magnet for mechanical energy. If such a machine is successfully created, and there have been numerous prototypes put forward but none yet successful enough to be marketable, it will be able to power a car. This will be a revolutionary breakthrough for the environment because it will cut out the emissions from cars that run on fuel from oil. A car that runs on a magnetic motor has the capacity to run smoothly and cleanly without having to be refueled except for a battery change, and without damaging the environment and contributing to global warming.

Scrap Magnet in use

About Noah Botwinick

Currently attending Yeshiva University in New York. Majoring in political science. I’m passionate about protecting the environment and the world we live in. I believe that sustainable, clean and efficient energy practices hold the key to reversing the damaging effects we’ve had on the earth. In addition, I played on my college basketball team for 2 years and I’m the editor in chief of the YU yearbook. 

• 
• 

Future (Obstacles) of Wind Energy Development

Story by Karmen Cheung, contributing author for the PeoplePlanetProfitBlog.com.  Wind energy survives another year with the extension of the PTC (production tax credit) in the recent fiscal cliff deal. The 2.2 cent per kWh tax credit will be applied for ten years of any project that qualifies within the one year extension window (through the end of 2013). This seems to bode well for wind developers for now, especially since we saw a record 44 percent of newly installed electric generation capacity last year came from wind. However, looking forward, the future of wind is not so certain. First, the recent explosion of natural gas production is a very real and significant threat to continued cost competitiveness of wind. The most recent EIA (Energy Information Association) estimates the cost of onshore wind to be 9.6 cents per kWh and the cost of natural gas plant at 6.3 cents per kWh.

Beyond cost competitiveness wind developers also face some public resistance due allegations of the negative environmental impacts of wind farms. Despite being a renewable resource, massive wind farm developments do have impacts on their surrounding communities. Locals have most strongly protested the visual and noise pollution caused by these large turbines. (Cape Wind, the first onshore wind farm was under debate for 11 years before finally being approved by Massachusetts last year). Furthermore, some protest the fact that roads and transmission lines are sometimes built in wilderness or remote areas that would otherwise have been left pristine.  Environmental groups also protest the bird and bat mortality that result from these wind facilities (but to put things in perspective, for every bird killed by a turbine, 5,820, on average, are killed striking buildings). Most of these issues (besides complaints of visual pollution) can be addressed simply through better siting on the part of developers. Currently, large turbines are sited away from known migratory paths of birds to significantly reduce the risk of bird mortality. Most wind farms conduct Environmental Impact Assessments prior to construction to ensure net impacts are reduce to an acceptable level.

Opponents of wind also argue that wind energy too unreliable and negatively affects electricity grids. This is simply a technological issue that can be solved through improved weather and wind forecasting and coupling of wind energy with other generators in the electric power system. The variability of wind resources can be managed through proper integration and transmission planning. Furthermore, wind energy outputs are not instantaneous. According to the American Wind Energy Association, it typically takes over an hour for a rapid change in wind speeds to shut down a large amount of wind generation.

Undoubtedly, wind energy will take a part of the future U.S. energy portfolio but continued investment in wind farms for now will still depend on government subsidies and technological innovations to reduce the cost of wind. The possible expiration of the PTC already caused significant slowing of domestic wind energy deployment this year (since wind farm projects typically take a year of planning before breaking ground). For now, wind energy has yet to achieve cost competitiveness without policies which take into account environmental externalities (i.e. a carbon tax).

About Karmen Cheung

I’m a New York City native currently attending Yale University focusing on Environmental Studies. I’m a big fan of large cities and good public transportation systems. Recently, I had the amazing opportunity to work with American Wind Association and while I’m not sure where life will take me next, I hope to work on issues of sustainability and corporate social responsibility in the near future. I believe in the power that businesses have and the role they need to play in efforts to create a more sustainable world.

• 
• 

RECs Explained

Story by Noah Botwinick, contributing author for the PeoplePlanetProfitBlog.com.

What are RECS?

Renewable Energy Certificates, which also go by the name Green Tags, Renewable Energy Credits, Renewable Electricity Certificates, or Tradable Renewable Certificates, are the tradable property rights to the energy generated from renewable energy resources. In other words, RECs are non-tangible energy commodities in the United States that represent proof that 1 megawatt-hour of electricity was generated from a certified renewable energy source. One REC is created when one megawatt of renewable energy has been generated and delivered to a local power pool. Ownership of an REC denotes that the owner purchased renewable energy; however, the actual electricity itself that is represented by the certificate is actually sold separately and is used by someone else.

How Did RECs Come About?

The necessity for RECs, which came about in the 1990s, came about because the electricity from renewable generators that is fed into the electricity grid gets mixed together with the electricity that comes from other, traditional energy sources. As a result, it is impossible to tell where each specific electron came from, so they can’t be sold individually. RECs are a way of making it possible to essentially purchase these electrons in the energy pool that came from renewable energy sources.

What Types of Energy Sources Qualify for REC Certificates?

-          Solar Electricity

-          Biomass

-          Low-impact hydropower

-          Wind Power

-          Fuel Cells that use renewable fuels

-          Geothermal energy

Why Buy RECs?

-          Meeting Government Standards: There are policies in place that require electricity service providers to incorporate a minimum level of renewable energy into their electricity supply. Such energy regulations, such as state Renewable Electricity Standards (RES) and Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) (http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4850 ), outline which energy technologies or resources can be used, as well as explain how electricity service providers must act in accordance with these regulations. Electricity service providers must either generate enough renewable energy to meet this obligation, or they can simply purchase enough RECs to fulfill their renewable energy requirements. Thus, RECs can be used to meet compliance with government renewable energy policies and regulations. Rather than a company completely revamping the way it receives its electricity, it has the option of purchasing RECs, either from another company or from the energy generator themselves. By purchasing RECs, the company is giving business to the renewable energy sources without having to actually change anything.

-          Environmental Benefits: Buying RECs enables the clean energy generators to keep on producing their clean energy and selling it. This is crucial because approximately 38 percent of the greenhouse gases produced in the United States come from traditional sources of electricity generation ( EPAs 2009 Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks), and the buying of RECs adds more clean energy to the power grid and helps decrease the amount of electricity generated from greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuels.

-          Energy User Preference for Green Electricity: Energy user preference for green electricity has led to the buying and selling of RECs as retail, commercial and industrial energy users seek to meet their own self-imposed renewable energy goals. By purchasing RECs, a company can do its share in helping the environment without actually taking tangible steps towards going green or using renewable energy themselves. RECs are also beneficial because they allow such buyers to support electrical generators that use renewable energy resources from all over, not just those that are close enough to supply them with clean energy. This allows green energy plants to increase their business because it enables more energy users to buy their products.

-          Supporting Renewable Energy: The buying and selling of RECs are crucial for the continuing production and usage of renewable energy in industrialized countries. Producing electricity from clean energy sources is often more expensive than energy derived from traditional energy sources. So, when someone purchases an REC, they are helping pay the additional costs associated with producing renewable energy. The more renewable energy generators are able to be set up and supported, the more benefit there is for the environment. Without RECs, renewable energy generators would not be able to remain functional due to the costs associated with producing energy from renewable resources.

-          Supporting Clean Energy Projects: Money generated from the sale of an REC can help fund clean energy projects.

-          Balancing the Market Flow:  Purchasing RECs can help balance the supply and demand for clean energy. By separating the eco-friendly benefits of clean energy generation from the actual electricity itself, the clean energy generator can get a fair market price for its electricity and help energy consumers elsewhere offset the emissions associated with their fossil fuel generated electricity use.

How are RECs Sold and Bought?

There are two ways that RECs are sold by clean energy generators. Either the generator can sell the electricity and the REC to an energy utility, which then resells both the electricity and the REC to an energy consumer, or the REC can be sold to an a REC Marketer, who can then resell just the REC to a consumer who is interested in supporting a clean energy generator.

RECs can be bought easily from an REC marketer, either as a one-time purchase or in monthly installments. There are several business that sell RECs online, and each marketer can offer different product options, such as which type of clean energy you are supporting. The cost of RECs varies, because it depends on the type of renewable resource that was used to generate the energy, as well as where it is purchased from. Generally, people purchase enough RECs to cover either a portion of or all their electricity use, thereby offsetting their own carbon emissions footprint. However, buying any amount of RECs is beneficial for the environment

Who are the Largest purchasers of RECs in the US?

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Energy_Certificate_(United_States)

The Air Force: The largest purchaser of RECs in the US government

• 899,142 MWh worth of RECs

University of Pennsylvania and Philadelphia: The largest purchaser of RECs among colleges and universities

• 192,727 MWh of RECs (from wind power)

Intel: The largest purchaser of RECs among large corporations

• 1,302,040 MWh purchased (in 2007)

Whole Foods: The largest purchaser among retailers

• 509,040 MWh worth of RECs (enough to counteract 100% of its energy needs)

What is on an REC?

Each REC states the location of where the energy came from, the source of where it came from and when it was generated. Additionally, each REC tells the purchaser about the renewable fuel sources, the emissions that are emitted from the renewable generation as well as avoided emissions, the vintage of the generator and the eligibility of the source for certification. Each REC tells the owner that its purchase has prevented more than 18,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions. A certifying agency gives a specific serial number to each REC, which is a unique identification number to make sure it doesn’t get double-counted. Each REC is also given an independent tracking system, in order to ensure that each REC is legitimate and used only once.

Picture taken from: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110426_windwakes.html

About Noah Botwinick

Currently attending Yeshiva University in New York. Majoring in political science. I’m passionate about protecting the environment and the world we live in. I believe that sustainable, clean and efficient energy practices hold the key to reversing the damaging effects we’ve had on the earth. In addition, I played on my college basketball team for 2 years and I’m the editor in chief of the YU yearbook. 

• 
• 

WindPower 101: Finding the Wind

Story by Karmen Cheung, contributing author for the PeoplePlanetProfitBlog.com.   Starting from small windmills in Europe during the middle ages to the large electricity-generating wind turbines of today, humans have been harnessing the power of wind for hundreds of years. As energy security and environmental problems are receiving greater attention, more and more proponents of wind energy as an alternative to dirty, nonrenewable energy sources have emerged. However, how feasible is it really to rely on wind energy to power our homes, our hospitals, and our manufacturing plants?

When evaluating the potential of wind power, the most basic condition of consideration the amount of wind resource available. While wind is everywhere, in order to develop large scale wind farms there needs to be enough wind to make the investment worthwhile.

Wind Power Density

The quantitative measure of wind energy available at any location is called the Wind Power Density (WPD). The WPD is a calculation of the mean annual power available per square meter of swept area of a turbine. The most important determinants of WPD are the average wind speed and the air density. As a result the National Renewable Energy Laboratory developed an index referred to as “NREL Class” and the larger the WPD calculation, the higher “class” rating a site receives. Classes range from Class 1 (200 watts per square meter or less) to Class 7 (800 to 2000 watts per square meter). Commercial wind farms generaly are sited in Class 3 or higher areas.

So where is it?

As you can see, from the figure below, areas with the higher wind speeds are generally concentrated in the Mid-West. This is largely due to the abundance of flat land; mountains and forests in the East and West coast prevent winds from picking up speed.  In general, areas with annual average winds greater than 6.5 m/s at 80 meters above ground are considered to have good wind resource (80 meters is a useful height because many wind turbines operate at this height).

Dilemmas of Extracting Wind

When trying to locate areas appropriate for wind farms, developers find themselves facing two major dilemmas of extracting wind.

1) Most wind energy is over smooth oceans, far from land and associated with turbulent weather patterns. As sites for wind power on land is starting to diminish, those searching for wind have started exploring the possibilities of moving offshore. But offshore wind power also brings with it significant obstacles such as the anchoring and mooring the turbine, the obstruction it presents to navigation, the high rate of corrosion due to salty seawater, high difficulty of repair, and the lack of ability to connect it to the power grid.

2) The fastest smoothest winds are in the upper atmosphere. While wind manufacturers are now able to build taller turbines, the low air density at high altitudes make it difficult to capture significant wind energy (air density decreases exponentially with increases in altitude). Furthermore, tall turbines are an obstruction to aviation because they would be in altitudes where commercial airlines fly.

As wind energy technology improves, we will hopefully find ways to extract energy more efficiently from our available wind resources.

About Karmen Cheung

I’m a New York City native currently attending Yale University focusing on Environmental Studies. I’m a big fan of large cities and good public transportation systems. Recently, I had the amazing opportunity to work with American Wind Association and while I’m not sure where life will take me next, I hope to work on issues of sustainability and corporate social responsibility in the near future. I believe in the power that businesses have and the role they need to play in efforts to create a more sustainable world.

• 
• 

GMO: From Lab to Plate – A $150 billion industry! What is it and why should I care?

Story by Noah Botwinick, contributing author for the PeoplePlanetProfitBlog.com.

GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organisms, and it is generally used in regards to crops that have been genetically altered in some way. The purpose of modifying crops is to enhance certain desirable traits in the crops themselves, and the process is generally accomplished through genetic engineering. Scientists are able to locate a specific gene that is responsible for a desired trait and then insert this gene into a different plant of the same species. As the world population continues to increase and more land is utilized for housing instead of food production, there is a growing need to grow crops in locations previously considered to be unsuitable for plant cultivation.

Genetically engineered crops can survive in areas that naturally occurring crops of the same plant species cannot survive in.

It is this advantage that makes GM crops so desirable. As a result of ever increasing population growth coupled with a decreasing amount of arable land and natural resources due to climate change and human destruction, it is now possible to foresee a time when, without GMOs, there will no longer be enough land to grow the food required to sustain the human population. The basic concept behind GM crops is that they can provide a greater food yield using less land. Scientists also believe that biotechnology provides the key to protecting soil erosion, which will enable the same lands to be constantly reused for farming.

Using genetic engineering, scientists have been improving crops in a number of ways by making them:

• Insect resistant: Crops that have been modified to be insect resistant can save farmers from serious financial loss from insects that destroy crops. It’s also healthier for people to eat foods that haven’t been sprayed with pesticides, and not using pesticides is better for the environment as well.
• Herbicide tolerant: Crops that have been genetically engineered to be resistant to just one very powerful herbicide can help prevent environmental damage and reduce growing costs by reducing the amount of herbicides needed.
•  Disease resistant: Scientists are working on genetically modified crops that will be able to withstand viruses, fungi and bacteria that cause plant diseases.
• Frost tolerant: Crops have been genetically altered to resist and survive in cold temperatures, which saves crops during unexpected cold weather and allows crops to be grown in regions that were previously considered too cold to grow crops in.
• Drought tolerant: Scientists are creating crops that require less water and thus can better survive droughts and be planted in areas that previously couldn’t sustain crops.
• Salinity tolerant: Creating plants that can withstand high salt content in soil and groundwater will help farmers grow crops in formerly infertile places.
• Healthier: Researchers are working on making crops that are genetically engineered to contain additional vitamins and minerals so as to provide more sustenance for humans. They are also are working to develop edible vaccines grown into certain crops.
• Cleaners: Certain types of plants have been genetically engineered to clean up heavy metal pollution from polluted soil and underground water, making the soil and water suitable for growing crops.
• Grown on Roofs: By using biotechnology to genetically modify plants so that they can thrive in rooftop growing conditions and vertical farms, it greatly increases the amount of land available for crop growing.
• Cheaper: Some GM crops can be cheaper to grow than naturally occurring forms of the same plant.

Despite these potential improvements that genetically modified crops contain within them, there are still those that are against their usage, due to a number of concerns with the practice of altering the genetic makeup of plant species for mass production.Some possible dangers of using GM food include; unintended harm to other organisms, reduced effectiveness of pesticides and herbicides and transferring of genes to non-target species.For each of these concerns, however, there are ways scientists can genetically alter the makeup of the plant without resulting in these negative effects. There are also potential human health risks, such as the creation of a new life threatening allergen within a particular plant species as well as any other possible unknown effects that GM food might have on human health.Still, through extensive testing researchers should be able to design GM foods that don’t pose health risks.Lastly, there are economic concerns with creating GM crops as well. The main issue with creating crops that have been genetically altered to be better than the natural form of the specific crop is that these new forms of the crop are subject to intellectual property law; in other words, these new crops can be owned by one company.This can significantly raise the prices of the seeds for that crop and make small farmers unable to afford seeds.

…new forms of the crop are subject to intellectual property law; in other words, these new crops can be owned by one company.

In 2011, the global value of genetically modified seeds alone was $13.2 billion. In the same year, commercial grain from GM maize, soybean grain and cotton was worth $160 billion. Seed companies, agrochemical companies, distributors, farmers, grain elevators and companies that develop new crops all make money in the agriculture business market from genetically altered crops. Companies that create a genetically modified crop with a desire trait can sell these crops to farmers and agriculture companies all over the world; these crops are especially desirable in resource-poor areas of the world. According to statistics by the ISAAA, roughly 15 million farmers spanning 29 countries around the world use GM crops, most of which were in developing countries.

Before these GM foods enter most national markets, they have to be cleared by the national food authorities as not possessing any health or environmental risks. Therefore, GM products that can be bought at a supermarket have all been cleared as safe by the national government’s food authorities. This holds true for GM products circulating in the international market as well. The World Health Organization is constantly working to improve the safety of GMOs by evaluating their risks and working to help solve them.

About Noah Botwinick

Currently attending Yeshiva University in New York. Majoring in political science. I’m passionate about protecting the environment and the world we live in. I believe that sustainable, clean and efficient energy practices hold the key to reversing the damaging effects we’ve had on the earth. In addition, I played on my college basketball team for 2 years and I’m the editor in chief of the YU yearbook. 

• 
• 

A Sustainable Fast Food Industry?

Story by Karmen Cheung, contributing author for the PeoplePlanetProfitBlog.com.  This year McDonald’s became the first fast food chain to make it onto the EPA’s Top 50 Green Power Purchasers list. Over the last ten years, McDonald’s and other leaders of the fast food industry have made efforts to improve their image through incorporating socially and environmentally responsible strategies into their business models. While fast food restaurants may never be 100% sustainable, there are many ways in which fast food companies can reduce their footprints. Small steps have already been made over the past several years but true impact is still far beyond our reach.  Some ideas that fast food industry leaders have started exploring include:

Powering restaurants with green energy

Increased investment in wind or solar energy could have immense impact on the renewable industries as well as lead to energy savings for fast food chains.

Thirty percent of McDonald’s electricity use at company-owned restaurants comes from wind power and the company is buying 306 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) of Green-e certified renewable energy certificates (RECs) annually.

Chipotle announced in 2009 that they would be installing solar panels at approximately 75 of its restaurants. When complete the installations are expected to produce 500 kilowatts of electricity collectively, and make Chipotle the largest direct producer of solar energy in the restaurant industry. Solar panels located on rooftops would not only help restaurants generate enough electricity to power the restaurant in the summer months but would also provide shade to decrease energy demand.

Recycling used cooking oil

The simple recycling of cooking oil to power diesel vehicles will reduce US spending on foreign oil by billions of dollars. Shake Shack, a rapidly growing chain of burger, hot dog and milk shake restaurant, already recycles all of their cooking oil into biofuel. Across the country, other restaurants, including McDonald’s are also slowly starting to adopt this practice.

Reduce impacts of packaging

The amount of packaging used in fast food restaurants has a large impact on the timber, paper and paper packaging industries. According to Dogwood Alliance, Starbucks and McDonald’s have been leaders in promoting sustainable packaging policies. Starbucks has been slowly working towards its goal of providing only reusable or recyclable cups by 2015 and McDonald’s has reduce the paper in its napkins by 21 percent and cut out 84 tons of paper in 2010 by reducing the size of bun tray liners. In October of this year, KFC has also issued a new sustainable packaging policy after two years of pressure from Dogwood Alliance.

LEED certify buildings

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is a voluntary, consensus-based, market-driven program that provides third party verification of green buildings. Participation in and international acceptance of LEED has grown rapidly over the past twenty years. Subways already has three LEED certified buildings and KFC opened up its first LEED certified restaurant in Indianapolis last year (this was also the first LEED certified retail building in the state). McDonald’s took the lead in green fast food restaurants recently with their participation in the LEED Volume program in which they pledged to build 25 LEED certified restaurants in the next three years.  Burger King has also laid an aggressive strategy to spend three billion dollars on remodeling more than half of its stores to become more energy efficient. The project, known as 20/20 stores are already being designed and rebuilt.

The initiatives mentioned in this article are not meant to be comprehensive in anyway but simply represents a small sampling of projects undertaken by fast food industry leaders.

About Karmen Cheung

I’m a New York City native currently attending Yale University focusing on Environmental Studies. I’m a big fan of large cities and good public transportation systems. Recently, I had the amazing opportunity to work with American Wind Association and while I’m not sure where life will take me next, I hope to work on issues of sustainability and corporate social responsibility in the near future. I believe in the power that businesses have and the role they need to play in efforts to create a more sustainable world.

• 
• 

The Third Industrial Revolution – Jeremy Rifkin

Source Forbes  http://www.forbes.com/sites/terrywaghorn/2011/12/12/jeremy-rifkins-third-industrial-revolution/

Jeremy Rifkin, president of the Foundation on Economic Trends and the best selling author of nineteen books spoke about his new book “The Third Industrial Revolution” – the possibility that a distributed energy revolution is possible because at some point “we all can create our own energy, store it, and then distribute it to each other because the third Industrial Revolution “is an economic game plan. We have the science and technology to do it, but it will mean nothing unless there is a change in will.” The first Industrial Revolution, Rifkin argues, “brought together print and literacy with coal steam and rail. The second combined the telegraph and telephone with the internal combustion engine and oil.”

The Third Industrial Revolutionwith Jeremy:

How did you come up with this idea?

My read on history is that the great economic revolutions occur when two phenomena come together. When we change energy regimes, it makes possible much more complex economic relations. When energy revolutions occur, however, they require communication revolutions that are agile enough to manage them. If you look at the 19th century, print technology became very cheap when we introduced steam power into printing. That decreased the cost and increased the speed, efficiency and availability of print material. At the same time we established public schools in Europe and America. We created a print literate workforce with the communication skills to organize a First Industrial Revolution driven by coal and steam power.

Then we did it again in the 20th century with the convergence of communication and energy: Centralized electricity—especially the telephone and then later radio and television—became the communication vehicles to manage a more dispersed Second Industrial Revolution, organized around the oil-powered internal combustion engine, suburban construction and the creation of a mass consumer society.

Energy historians only deal with energy, and communication historians only deal with communications, but in history you can’t really do one without the other. That’s the framework that led me to this kind of search, and the Third Industrial Revolution really came out of that narrative on how history evolves.

So, what exactly is the Third Industrial Revolution?

First of all, it’s based on a new convergence of communication and energy. The Internet has been a very powerful communication tool in the last 20 years. What’s so interesting about it is the way it scales. I grew up in the 20th century on centralized electricity communication that scales vertically. The Internet, by contrast, is a distributed and collaborative communication medium and scales laterally.

We are in the early stages of a convergence of Internet communication technology with a new form of energy that is by nature distributed and has to be managed collaboratively and scales laterally. We’re making a great transition to distributed renewable energy sources. And we distinguish those from the elite energies—coal, oil, gas, tar sands—that are only found in a few places and require significant military and geopolitical investments and massive finance capital, and that have to scale top down because they are so expensive. Those energies are clearly sunsetting as we enter the long endgame of the Second Industrial Revolution.

Distributed energies, by contrast, are found in some frequency or proportion in every inch of the world: the sun, the wind, the geothermal heat under the ground, biomass—garbage, agricultural and forest waste—small hydro, ocean tides and waves.

About Justin Ragusa

I am an Eco-Entrepreneur, author, and webmaster of PeoplePlanetProfitBlog.com I love living green and try to incorporate all I do in this industry. Let me know if you have any questions, I’ll show you how to make a rewarding and profitable career in the Energy Industry… just contact me.

• 
• 
• 
• 
•