Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

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

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

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

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

Renewable energy sources (RES) supply 14% of the total world energy demand. The future growth in the energy sector will be primarily in the new regime of renewable energy, and to some extent natural gas-based systems and the conventional oil and coal sources will then die out.

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

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

IFC finances projects across the waste value chain from upstream industry/populations to downstream disposal and energy utilization: Upstream: Municipal and solid waste, industrial and manufacturing, hazardous and medical waste; Midstream: collection and transport; separation and process; Downstream: waste disposal; energy recovery. IFC's investment approach is to promote development of the waste industry in emerging markets, help reduce costs, and allow the industry to become competitive. We support integrated solid waste (SW) management approaches, with regional strategies to gain economies of scale and drive down costs. Through our work, we leverage existing formal and informal sectors for collection and recycling, to maximize poverty and social impacts, improve health and safety, and drive gender equality. IFC investments encourage low cost, technically viable, and climate favorable waste collection and disposal solutions with energy recovery where feasible. Additionally, we support upstream waste generation to adopt "3Rs" - Reuse, Reduce Recycle. We access concessional finance to enable waste projects in LICs where full cost recovery is not yet possible due to inability to pay or insufficient regulatory framework.

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.