Group items tagged

* Body Heat Body heat can warm an entire building, complete with offices, apartments and shops. In fact, Jernhuset, a state owned property Administration Company is putting together a plan to capture body heat from train commuters traveling through Stockholm's Central Station. The idea is that the heat will warm water running through pipes, which will then be pumped through the building's ventilation system. While in Paris Habitat, owner of a low-income housing project in Paris, will use body heat to warm 17 apartments in a building as well. The said housing project is directly above a metro station near Pompidou Center. * Sugar Currently, researchers and chemists at Virginia Tech are developing a means to convert sugar into hydrogen. In which can be used in a fuel cell, and in turn it will provide a cheaper, cleaner, pollutant-free and odorless drive. The scientists combine plant sugars, water and 13 powerful enzymes in a reactor, converting the concoction into hydrogen and trace amounts of carbon dioxide. The hydrogen could be captured and pumped through a fuel cell to produce energy. Their process will translate into cost savings; it delivers three times more hydrogen than traditional methods. * Solar Wind This is way more powerful than humility currently needs is available right now, out in space. A stream of energized, charged particles flowing outward from the sun is actually from the solar wind. Brooks Harrop, a physicist at Washington State University in Pullman and Dirk Schulze-Makuch of Washington State's School of Earth and Environmental Science, think they can capture these particles with a satellite that orbits the sun the same distance Earth does. * Feces and Urine Feces contain methane, a colorless, odorless gas that could be used in the same way as natural gas. Human waste is also good and so is urine. * Vibrations Club Watt in Rotterdam, Netherlands is using floor vibrations from people walking and dancing to power its ligh

Fossil fuels-coal, oil, and natural gas-are America's primary source of energy. America's annual consumption of fossil fuels grown rapidly. 89 % of these consumption are consumed by boilers, transportation, residential usage, fuels for direct heating of process. The balance is used for feed-stocks, raw materials, and other miscellaneous uses. And most of the dirty fuels such as coal and residual oil go into boilers. Fuel burned are by far the largest single source of air pollution. This pollution is from sulfur oxide. It is also a significant source of particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. Boiler combustion is sufficiently important to warrant the effort to analyze the complete nature of the problems. Fuel consumption in boilers is divided into three sectors: utility boilers producing steam for generation of electricity which is actually consuming probably 59%, industrial boilers producing steam or hot water for process heat,generation of electricity or space heat consuming about 24%, and boilers for space heating for commercial and institutional facilities consuming the 17%. The fuels consumed by boilers in large quantities are natural gas, distillate oil, and coal. Additional energy is derived from the burning of waste such as bark, bagasse, liquid hydrocarbon waste materials, etc. These said fuels contribute only a small percent to energy requirements. But they may however present environmental problems. Although problems have not been address due to the fact that these problems are not full understood. New Sources performance Standards for burning boilers waste are to be developed in the near future. For fossil fuels, various combination of consuming sectors and type of fuel, have independent significant and insignificant environmental consequences. Boilers have three different types, the atertube, firetube and cast iron therefore to determine the overall pollution due to boilers are hard to determine and complicated. In addition each type varie

Leading Scientists Explain: http://crowncapitalmngt.com/ Scientists have long predicted that climate change would bring on ever-worsening droughts, especially in semi-arid regions like the U.S. Southwest. As climatologist James Hansen, who co-authored one of the earliest studies on this subject back in 1990, told me this week, "Increasingly intense droughts in California, all of the Southwest, and even into the Midwest have everything to do with human-made climate change." Why does it matter if climate change is playing a role in the Western drought? As one top researcher on the climate-drought link reconfirmed with me this week, "The U.S. may never again return to the relatively wet conditions experienced from 1977 to 1999." If his and other projections are correct, then there may be no greater tasks facing humanity than 1) working to slash carbon pollution and avoid the worst climate impact scenarios and 2) figuring out how to feed nine billion people by mid-century in a Dust-Bowl-ifying world. Remarkably, climate scientists specifically predicted a decade ago that Arctic ice loss would bring on worse droughts in the West, especially California. As it turns out, Arctic ice loss has been much faster than the researchers - and indeed all climate modelers - expected. And, of course, California is now in the death-grip of a brutal, record-breaking drought, driven by the very change in the jet stream that scientists had anticipated. Is this just an amazing coincidence - or were the scientists right? And what would that mean for the future? Building on my post from last summer, I talked to the lead researcher and several other of the world's leading climatologists and drought experts. First, a little background. Climate change makes Western droughts longer and stronger and more frequent in several ways, as I discussed in my 2011 literature review in the journal Nature: Precipitation patterns are expected to shift, expanding the dry subtropics. Wha

Life has never been easy for just-hatched Magellanic penguins, but climate change is making it worse, according to a decades-long study of the largest breeding colony of the birds. The chicks are already vulnerable to predation and starvation. Now, the study at Punta Tombo, Argentina, found that intense storms and warmer temperatures are increasingly taking a toll. "Rainfall is killing a lot of penguins, and so is heat," said P. Dee Boersma, a University of Washington scientist and lead author of the study. "And those are two new causes." Climate scientists say more extreme weather, including wetter storms and more prolonged periods of heat and cold, is one impact of a climate that is changing because of emissions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. While monitoring the penguin colony, Dr. Boersma and her colleagues also documented regional temperature changes and increases in the number of days with heavy rains. The study, which is being published online Wednesday in the journal PLoS ONE, is one of the first to show a direct impact of climate change on seabirds. Most studies have looked at how warming temperatures affect animals indirectly, by altering predation patterns or food supplies. William J. Sydeman, senior scientist at the Farallon Institute in California, who was not involved in the research, said the study linked changes in climate, which occur on a scale of decades, to the daily scale of life in the colony. "That's a unique contribution," he said. The colony at Punta Tombo, in a temperate and relatively dry region about midway along Argentina's coast, is home to about 200,000 breeding pairs of the penguins, which are about 15 inches tall as adults. Dr. Boersma has been working there since 1982, with long-term support from the Wildlife Conservation Society. For this study, the researchers compiled data on nearly 3,500 chicks that they meticulously tracked by checking nests once or twice a day throughout the six-month breeding season, w

With emerging renewable energy alternatives today, it is highly important that they be given enough attention even early on their developmental stages. Such technologies might not be ready for commercial uses yet but their potential should be amply tested and funded. Society's modern lifestyle is in serious need of energy that can be generated and consumed and yet, not compromise the future state for generations to come; to have no anxiety that it would cause damage to the environment. Green energy could come from such sources available in our environment that are naturally replenished and efficient like tides, wind, sunlight and geothermal heat. It is very different from low-carbon energy as the former does not add to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at all, thus, coming with minimal environmental harm and greenhouse gas. Concerns in climate change and increasing oil prices are some of the contributing factors in drawing the spotlight to renewable energy and its potential for commercialization. Green energy can effectively replace our conventional fuel of today in all its main uses, which are in heating, vehicle fuel and electricity generation sectors. In fact, 19% of the electricity generated around the world today comes from renewable sources. Furthermore, since the emergence of biofuels in the United States 6 years ago, consumption of conventional oil has decreased significantly. For a green energy resource or technology to be sustainable, it has to give the maximum environmental advantage while still serving its purpose.

The economic development of one country is dependent upon the ability of the authorities to set up a highly suitable, competitive and reliable electricity sector. Why is natural gas better than coal boilers? Only when there is extreme environmental pressure or substantial reduction in loads that conversion from coal to 100% natural gas is possible. Not until the 20th century until natural gas was used for production of energy, it was dismissed as a useless byproduct of crude oil production until then. But now natural gas accounts for 23 percent of the world's energy consumption and still growing. The International Energy Agency predicts that the demand for natural gas will grow by approximately 44 percent through 2035. Natural gas is the cleanest-burning conventional fuel not to mention it has been one of the most economical energy sources. It is an environmentally friendly and efficient source of energy. It produces lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions than heavier hydrocarbon fuels such as coal and oil. Natural gas fuels electric power generators, heats buildings and is used as a raw material in many consumer products, such as those made of traditional plastics. However, natural gas has never been a cheaper fuel than coal. Coal is one of the longest-used and is considered as the most abundant fossil fuels on Earth. Coal mining has been going on since then 17th century. Coal burning boilers have also been around for a long time, and while they may not always be popular, these machines have some definite advantages in terms of costs and simplicity. Because it is the most abundant it is the cheapest form of fossil fuel to burn. But coal boilers on the other hand have harmful effects on the environment and human health. Its emissions contain sulfur combines with air to create the poison gas sulfur oxide. When this gas releases into the atmosphere, it causes polluting rain. Extracting coal from mines further damages soil and water resources, adding to the

The economic development of one country is dependent upon the ability of the authorities to set up a highly suitable, competitive and reliable electricity sector. Why is natural gas better than coal boilers? Only when there is extreme environmental pressure or substantial reduction in loads that conversion from coal to 100% natural gas is possible. Not until the 20th century until natural gas was used for production of energy, it was dismissed as a useless byproduct of crude oil production until then. But now natural gas accounts for 23 percent of the world's energy consumption and still growing. The International Energy Agency predicts that the demand for natural gas will grow by approximately 44 percent through 2035. Natural gas is the cleanest-burning conventional fuel not to mention it has been one of the most economical energy sources. It is an environmentally friendly and efficient source of energy. It produces lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions than heavier hydrocarbon fuels such as coal and oil. Natural gas fuels electric power generators, heats buildings and is used as a raw material in many consumer products, such as those made of traditional plastics. However, natural gas has never been a cheaper fuel than coal. Coal is one of the longest-used and is considered as the most abundant fossil fuels on Earth. Coal mining has been going on since then 17th century. Coal burning boilers have also been around for a long time, and while they may not always be popular, these machines have some definite advantages in terms of costs and simplicity. Because it is the most abundant it is the cheapest form of fossil fuel to burn. But coal boilers on the other hand have harmful effects on the environment and human health. Its emissions contain sulfur combines with air to create the poison gas sulfur oxide. When this gas releases into the atmosphere, it causes polluting rain. Extracting coal from mines further damages soil and water resources, adding to the

Biomass for energy often mean plant base material although can equally apply to both animal and vegetable draw from material. Biomass is actually a biological material derive form living or recently living organisms. Biomass chemical composition is carbon based and is composed of a mixture of organic molecules containing hydrogen, usually including atoms of oxygen, often nitrogen and also small quantities of other atoms, including alkali, alkaline earth and heavy metals, metals are often found in functional molecules such as the porphyrins which include chlorophyll which contains magnesium. There are five basic categories of material of biomass such as: *Virgin wood- from forestry, arboriculture activities or from wood processing. *Energy crops- high yield crops grown specifically for energy applications *Agricultural residues- residues from agriculture harvesting or processing * Food waste- from food and drink manufacture, preparation and processing, and post-consumer waste *Industrial waste and co-products- from manufacturing and industrial processes. The question is how are we going to use this biomass as a fuel for boilers? But what is a boiler in the first place? A boiler is defined as "a closed vessel in which water or other liquid is heated, steam or vapor is generated, steam is superheated, or any combination thereof, under pressure or vacuum, for use external to itself, by the direct application of energy from the combustion of fuels, from electricity or nuclear energy." Let us then go back to the previous question, how are we going to use this biomass as fuel for boilers. Nowadays, the prime sources of energy in the world are oil, coal and natural gas. But these natural sources of energy has their end too, unfortunately it is already anticipated that within the next 40-50 years these sources of energy will deplete. Worst is, it is also expected that from these sources lies consequences due to their emissions such as

JUNEAU, Alaska - the Alaskan Brewing Co. is going green, but instead of looking to solar and wind energy, it has turned to a very familiar source: beer. (Spokesman.com) The Juneau-based beer maker has installed a unique boiler system in order to cut its fuel costs. It purchased a $1.8 million furnace that burns the company's spent grain - the waste accumulated from the brewing process - into steam that powers the majority of the brewery's operations. Company officials now joke they are now serving "beer-powered beer." What to do with spent grain was seemingly solved decades ago by breweries operating in the Lower 48. Most send the used grain, a good source of protein, to nearby farms and ranches to be used as animal feed. But there were only 37 farms in southeast Alaska and 680 in the entire state as of 2011, and the problem of what to do with the excess spent grain - made up of the residual malt and barley - became more problematic after the brewery expanded in 1995. The Alaskan Brewing Co. had to resort to shipping its spent grain to buyers in the Lower 48. Shipping costs for Juneau businesses are especially high because there are no roads leading in or out of the city; everything has to be flown or shipped in. However, the grain is a relatively wet byproduct of the brewing process, so it needs to be dried before it is shipped - another heat-intensive and expensive process. But the company was barely turning a profit by selling its spent grain. Alaskan Brewing gets $60 for every ton it sends to farms in the Lower 48, but it costs them $30 to ship each ton. So four years ago, officials at the company started looking at whether it could use spent grain as an in-house, renewable energy source and reduce costs at the same time. It contracted with a North Dakota company to build the special boiler system after the project was awarded nearly $500,000 in a grant from the federal Rural Energy for America Program. The craft brewery is expecting

The path to low-carbon electricity generation in Texas will likely require the co-development and integration of both natural gas and renewable energy resources like wind and solar power, a new research report commissioned by the Texas Clean Energy Coalition has found. The white paper, prepared by the Brattle Group for the Austin-based nonprofit, states that despite perceived competition between natural gas and renewable energy resources in Texas, the reality is the two sectors can aid each other's growth and can eventually help Texas meet rising energy demand in an era of tighter environmental controls. "Low-priced natural gas and clean renewable resources are complementary, not competing, resources to displace other fuels over the long term. Coordinated development of both will lead to a win-win for Texas and the environment," Kip Averitt, chairman of the Texas Clean Energy Coalition, said in a statement announcing the results of the Brattle Group analysis. The report examined conditions across the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) territory, which has some of the nation's greatest wind power capacity and has undergone an unprecedented boom in natural gas production aided by hydraulic fracturing. Some have asserted that an abundance of inexpensive natural gas will displace renewable energy, thus keeping Texas from fully developing its extensive wind and solar resources. The Brattle analysis challenges that conclusion, asserting instead that "in the short run, low gas prices are extremely unlikely to change the fact that existing renewables will nearly always have priority over gas-fired plants since, due to the absence of fuel costs, their variable costs are lower than those of essentially all other resources." And longer term, the analysis finds, new gas-fired power plants may compete with wind and solar power, but such conditions will be predicated on fluctuation in coal and gas prices, shifts in federal and state energy and environmental poli

The path to low-carbon electricity generation in Texas will likely require the co-development and integration of both natural gas and renewable energy resources like wind and solar power, a new research report commissioned by the Texas Clean Energy Coalition has found. The white paper, prepared by the Brattle Group for the Austin-based nonprofit, states that despite perceived competition between natural gas and renewable energy resources in Texas, the reality is the two sectors can aid each other's growth and can eventually help Texas meet rising energy demand in an era of tighter environmental controls.

Population and poverty can be a very basic factor accountable for the environmental problems we are experiencing nowadays.

A national disaster warning: in up to five million years, this is the first time that the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is approximately to reach 400 parts per million (ppm). Monday on The guardian reports, former NASA scientist James Hansen warned that levels over 350ppm would destabilize the earth's climate, but now we have far exceeded that figure with a record-breaking weekly average of 398.5ppm recorded. While in May 2013, researchers at the Earth Systems Research Laboratory in Hawaii expect we will hit the 400ppm milestone. Aside from many other issues like global fraud for example there are many else the government should give attention to. According to The Guardian, the US government has been monitoring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at the Mauna Loa station located at an elevation of 11,115 feet since 1958. During the time when it was first ascertained, CO2 levels stayed at a manageable 316ppm, but in the past five decades population expansion coupled with the growth of industrialized nations hooked on fossil fuels and meat has saturated the atmosphere with heat-trapping gases. "I wish it weren't true but it looks like the world is going to blow through the 400ppm level without losing a beat. At this pace we'll hit 450ppm within a few decades," Ralph Keeling, a geologist with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography which operates the Hawaiian observatory, told The Guardian. It is as if it was a national disaster warning. This "sobering milestone" should be a wake up call for governments to support clean energy and slash emissions, said Tim Lueker, an oceanographer and carbon cycle researcher with Scripps CO2 Group.

Stanford University recently published a report in the journal Science pointing but the extent to which the climate change rate - so much heat absorbed in very little time -is overtaking any other eras of warming or cooling in the Earth's 65 million years history. If present estimates are precise, the researchers state, that pace will speed up to 50 or even 100 times quicker than anything we have observed in the past. Scientific American explains: They observed climate occurrences or primary transitions that have transpired on Earth from the time of the dinosaurs' extinction. Those include the time when the Earth came out of an ice age. Temperatures then went up between 3 and 5 degrees Celsius, similar to the amount scientists predict is possible with the prevailing climate change. But that change occurred within about 20,000 years, the scientists pointed out, and not mere decades as it is now the case. Another study conducted by University of Texas and put out in the journal Nature, has discovered that the Antarctic permafrost is also melting at a rate 10 times faster compared to anything measured previously, that is, in the last 11,000 years. The scientists explain that the dramatic shift is not due to higher temperatures but to altering weather patterns in which the region is experiencing more sunlight than before. The researchers of the Antarctic case are not overly worried at their findings, explaining that for the Arctic polar ice to melt at this rate would be much more problematic. The findings of the Stanford study are not as hopeful. To keep up with the present rate of global warming, says study author Christopher Field, we have to begin adjusting accordingly on a significantly faster timetable. The chances of reducing its effects now, in his calculation, is not so bright: To keep the temperature rise to about 1.5 degrees, the Earth would have to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050, and then attain negative emissions, that is,