Group items tagged

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

There are a lot of people who assumes that the sole technology that is now available to substitute fossil fuels is nuclear power especially when climate scientists and some energy policy analysts take a "tough-minded" look at the numbers. Eduardo Porter of the New York Times made that argument last week when he wrote: …nuclear power remains the cheapest and most readily scalable of the alternative energy sources. There are many reasons why nuclear power is a bad solution to the climate crisis. The first reason is that the technology is not available. Nuclear power plants are capital-intensive, technologically complex to manage, and difficult, if not impossible, to site. These issues are not minor, investors chose putting their money somewhere else and communities are greatly against sitting a plant in their backyard. As a consequence, despite our knowledge on how to use electricity this way plus our years of experience practicing it, in the U.S. these plants will never be built in enough amount to reduce global warming. There is a slight difference between the technology of nuclear power generation and the technology of nuclear bomb development. It is now hard to put things back the way it used to be, let us admit that human political systems or organizational processes cannot manage the risks of this technology. Other issues associated with current nuclear technologies that cause them to become problematic. For instance, the toxicity of its fuel and waste should not be ignored. Dangerous accidents are rare but once it happened, the impact is intense and long-lasting. It is hard to judge the danger posed by a poorly managed one while a well-managed plant poses little real danger. There is also a possibility of sabotage. Terrorists taking over a plant and threatening to plant accident could hold a city hostage. Electric utilities are natural monopolies that necessitate government regulation. The investment in infrastructure to produce and send out electrici

" Environmental Issues Author And Page Information by Anup ShahThis Page Last Updated Sunday, March 03, 2013 This page: http://www.globalissues.org/issue/168/environmental-issues. To print all information e.g. expanded side notes, shows alternative links, use the print version: http://www.globalissues.org/print/issue/168 This part of the global issues web site attempts to highlight some of the environmental issues and concerns that have an affect on all of us - from what we do, to what we don't do. 47 articles on "Environmental Issues" and 7 related issues: Biodiversity Last updated Sunday, March 03, 2013. The variety of life on Earth, its biological diversity, is commonly referred to as biodiversity. The number of species of plants, animals, and microorganisms, the enormous diversity of genes in these species, the different ecosystems on the planet, such as deserts, rainforests and coral reefs are all part of a biologically diverse Earth. Appropriate conservation and sustainable development strategies attempt to recognize this as being integral to any approach. In some way or form, almost all cultures have recognized the importance of nature and its biological diversity for their societies and have therefore understood the need to maintain it. Yet, power, greed and politics have affected the precarious balance. Read "Biodiversity" to learn more. Why Is Biodiversity Important? Who Cares? Last updated Wednesday, April 06, 2011. Why is Biodiversity important? Does it really matter if there aren't so many species? Biodiversity boosts ecosystem productivity where each species, no matter how small, all have an important role to play. For example, a larger number of plant species means a greater variety of crops; greater species diversity ensures natural sustainability for all life forms; and healthy ecosystems can better withstand and recover from a variety of disasters. And so, while we dominate this planet, we still need to preserve the diversity in

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,

As we all know earthquake is a catastrophic natural disaster. Most earthquake-related deaths are caused by the collapse of structures and the construction practices play a tremendous role in the death toll of an earthquake. In southern Italy in 1909 more than 100,000 people perished in an earthquake that struck the region. Almost half of the people living in the region of Messina were killed due to the easily collapsible structures that dominated the villages of the region. Though there are some ways to prevent this from happening, it can never be considered as risk avoidance. A larger earthquake that struck San Francisco three years earlier had killed fewer people (about 700) because building construction practices were different type (predominantly wood). Survival rates in the San Francisco earthquake was about 98%, that in the Messina earthquake was between 33% and 45%) (Zebrowski, 1997). Even a moderate rupture beneath a city with structures unprepared for shaking can produce tens of thousands of casualties. Due to this fact, Crown Eco Management determined that safety measures for this could not be compared to fraud prevention. Although probably the most important that we should know, direct shaking effects are not the only hazard associated with earthquakes, other effects such as landslides, liquefaction, and tsunamis have also played important part in destruction produced by earthquakes. According to the Crown researchers, some earthquakes are not natural. Human beings can actually cause them. That's the case with an earthquake in Lorca, Spain, last May. The quake measured 5.1 on the Richter scale and killed nine people. According to an analysis published in Crown Eco Management, the Lorca quake was caused by the extraction of groundwater from an aquifer near the fault that slipped. In circumstance, it does not take much to trigger an earthquake. Oil and gas wells, rock quarries, even the added pressure of a reservoir lake behind a new dam can cause

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

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.

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.

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

Although it is common for companies to push sustainability results by establishing definite, time-bound goals, attaining them is a distinct process for every enterprise. Innovation, investment and operational savvy all play a part in achieving success; but the most significant factor is formulating a vigorous culture of sustainability that incorporates this approach into every facet of the business. Recently, our company announced that over the past three years we have made noteworthy improvements in our environmental performance. This included reduction of our energy usage by 12%, our greenhouse gas emissions by 15.7%, and attaining a leading-edge level of 3.5 hectoliters of water used for every hectoliter of beer made, posting an 18.6% reduction. These efficiency improvements were all achieved mainly without any major investment in new, sophisticated technology. Like any global company reach, our worldwide operations face various local conditions. Challenges ranging from the capabilities and age of equipment to the diversity in quality and availability of raw materials mean that choosing a "one-size-fits-all" approach is often impossible. The main approach that can steer a company toward environmental maturity is to develop a culture of environmental conservation and awareness into all aspects of every employee's tasks on a daily basis. This idea has been around for a while; however, it is also something that is not often observed in reality. For us, ascertaining that we provide incentives and challenges to our 118,000 fellow workers to make gradual changes in the work environment - big or small, within our more than 140 breweries and soft drink facilities - was the best method to attain our three-year goals. Along the way, we discovered some essential factors in establishing such a culture of sustainability: 1.Elevate sustainability initiatives to the same level as other business-critical functions Having employees scattered worldwide

The thought could be scary, knowing how much toxins you inhale everyday. Through the help of technology European researchers are gearing up to monitor thousands of people. Smartphones are given away to record the chemicals to which they are exposed every day. Exposome, the term used by European Commission to study the effects of environmental exposures to human health. It was then hope that the four-year studies will benefit public health in ways that genome research so far has not. Exposone could reveal a warning or warnings of environmental health issues for use. "There's been too much emphasis on genetic factors, which contribute relatively little to disease compared with environmental factors," says Martyn Smith, a toxicologist at the University of California, Berkeley, who is participating in the newly funded Exposomics project. Paolo Vineis, an environmental epi¬demiologist at Imperial College London, leads the €8.7-million project. Some studies do not always succeed like the Genome-wide association studies, in which scientists search for genetic variants linked to disease. They have failed to fully explain why some people are more susceptible than others to chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes. The new study will work this way, subjects will carry smartphones equipped with sensors to measure exposures, and their blood will be analyzed to monitor molecular changes. The majority of the participants are already concerned in other long-term health studies. In order to understand the triggers for conditions such as heart disease, asthma and lung cancer, goal is to look for biomarker differences between people walking through areas with low air pollution and those exposed to urban fumes. The idea is to differentiate the difference the toxins will cause the human health basing on their environment. Vineis's exposomics approach has already exposed gene-expression signatures that connect people's leukaemia risk with their exposure to heavy me

Alarmed that hope was soon be gone on the emphasis on "green" energy, presidents Obama's re-election has put a new optimism in the step of environmentalists restoring hope not just for more aggressive climate-change policy but to continue on the said project despite the unforeseen failure and serial bankruptcies of Solyndra and other green-energy in unison. In 1970's we were at the lowest in terms of energy resources are concerned because hydrocarbon energy such as oil, natural gas and coal were in short supply, expensive and were being imported from unstable regions overseas, we were then left with no choice but endow with renewable energy. The problem with hydrocarbon energy is that it produces eccentric amount of air pollution. As time passes by, technology has found a way to reduce air pollution. It appears that unpredictably, conventional domestic hydrocarbon energy has become abundant again despite unrelenting federal hostility. The global-warming crusade is still hanging onto its dreams of political relevance. Why is this green energy important? Now that we had proven that green energy is the golden road to prosperity was in fact a lie, but somehow the strategy of forcing higher-cost energy sources on consumers and propping them up with taxpayer subsidies is somewhat been blinded from the laws of economics. Meaning we are all paying twice. To be sure, if the government will support financially and authorize any form of economic activity, it will "create jobs." However, as Ms. Furchtgott-Roth, author of Regulating to Disaster, she patiently explains, this kind of reasoning ignores the famous lesson of Frederic Bastiat about what is unseen: "What is seen according to Bastiat, are the jobs directly created by the government, and what is not seen are the workers displaced by the effects of increased taxes, tariffs and government regulation." The idea could have been more believable if we actually got some of the green jobs. In fact, new emp