The environment thread

[Texsox]

Well you know, since he's really our president (because Bush isn't), he's "owed" the office.

 

Of course we can always hope for Jeb to continue the BFD*

 

 

 

*Bush Family Dynasty

[kapkomet]

Parts of El Paso are nasty, but just north of downtown are some wonderful areas and as soon as you leave the city, great places to visit. Dallas/Fort Worth is nice. I loved working and visiting the area.

Houston is dirty and smelly from the refineries.

I really enjoy San Antonio - the riverwalk is a great place to hang out, if you could get rid of the tourists.

Amarillo, Midland/Odessa, Lubbock is a walk back in time. West Texas in general is the old West in a lot of ways. Some embarrassing red necks and I use that term specifically, no other way to give y'all the image.

 

Kap nailed this one,

Lots and lots of liberals for Kap to scream at My son attends Texas State University in San Marcos, halfway between Austin and San Antonio. Hill Country is incredible. With Texas being so big, and geographically diverse the cities all have a distinct feel. But I will eventually move to the Austin area, I just have to drop 50 pounds to fit in.

Like what, Las Cruces, New Mexico?

 

East Texas is really pretty too, especially the Piney Woods area.

 

[Texsox]

Like what, Las Cruces, New Mexico?

 

East Texas is really pretty too, especially the Piney Woods area.

 

I am thinking of a residential area up in the hills that I really liked. The area right on the border is very nasty, but I stayed with a friend who owned a nice home in a very nice area. He worked for a maquilla across the border. I also did some driving towards New Mexico and it was very nice. But you are right, New Mexico is much nicer in that corner of the world.

[BigSqwert]

Interesting site:

 

http://www.dell.com/html/global/topics/pure_earth/index.html

[EvilMonkey]

I have an environmental idea! How about we just cause a volcano to erupt which would spew ash into the atmosphere reversing the effects of global warming almost instantly with its global cooling effects.

[BigSqwert]

Hefty GM hybrids could boost automaker

Chevy Tahoe, GMC Yukon get impressive mileage; ‘halo’ effect seen

 

By Roland Jones

Associate editor

MSNBC

Updated: 1 hour, 36 minutes ago

 

 

Roland Jones

Associate editor

General Motors took a major step forward last week in its bid to boost its fading fortunes, but it’s probably not the one you’re thinking of.

 

True, GM clinched a new four-year labor contract with striking United Auto Workers that, if ratified by union members, could put the automaker on more even footing with its Asian rivals. But in a less noticed-move that ultimately could prove nearly as important, GM provided new details about the industry's first full-size hybrid gas-and-electric-powered sport utility vehicles, which will appear on dealers’ lots in late December.

 

The new hybrid versions of the Chevy Tahoe and GMC Yukon will offer an impressive 21 miles per gallon in city driving and 22 miles per gallon on the highway, according to official mileage estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency, issued Thursday. That’s a 30 percent gain in overall fuel economy and 50 percent for city driving, making the new SUVs as fuel-efficient in the city as a four-cylinder Toyota Camry.

 

Although sales of large SUVs have taken a hit in recent years as gasoline prices have risen, with once-popular models seeing big production cuts and buyers flocking to so-called “crossover” vehicles, many buyers still want a large vehicle or one with the ability to tow large loads. A strong reception for the new hybrid SUVs could help boost sales of other GM vehicles by creating a “halo” effect for the company, said Tom Appel, editor of Consumer Guide Automotive, which offers buying advice to car shoppers.

 

GM could use a halo effect as it markets important new sedans such as the Saturn Aura, midsize Cadillac CTS and forthcoming Chevy Malibu.

 

“GM has been heavily reliant on fleet sales and they need to get into consumer retail more,” Appel said. “And this is the sort of good news that helps you sell product overall.”

 

Good product is vital to GM’s success. The automaker has reduced capacity, pared its workforce, shut plants and scored a victory with its union deal on health care, which removes some $50 billion in health-care liabilities from its books. Now GM is relying on some hit new models to drive up sales and revenue.

 

Sales of GM’s top brands of Buick, Cadillac and Chevy are down sharply so far this year. Only the GMC and Saturn brands are showing a gain. GM has low sales projections for its two hybrid SUVs, but their impact could still be significant, Appel said.

 

“[These new hybrid SUVs] might not be the one product that contributes to GM’s financial success, but I think they will contribute to GM’s overall renaissance,” he said. “The ability to take a very heavy vehicle and give it really good fuel economy speaks volumes about GM’s reinvestment in its products and future products.”

 

Jointly developed with BMW and DaimlerChrysler, GM’s “two-mode” hybrid system could lead to a revitalization of SUV sales. It also reportedly will be featured on GM’s full-size pick-up trucks in 2009 as well as the Dodge Durango, Chrysler Aspen, Mercedes-Benz ML and BMW’s X6 SUVs.

 

The “two-mode” system allows the Yukon and Tahoe to travel using electrical power at speeds up to 30 mph before the gas engine kicks in, while GM’s “Active Fuel Management” system saves additional fuel by disengaging half of the engine’s cylinders when full power is not required. GM also improved aerodynamics and reduced the weight of some components to offset the added weight of the hybrid battery pack.

 

Large SUVs are excellent candidate for hybrid drive, notes Karl Brauer, editor in chief at automotive research site Edmunds.com. Heavy vehicles use large amounts of gas moving from a standing start to 5 mph, but hybrids use stored electricity to get rolling, so that gas is saved.

 

“I think these vehicles will be really important,” Brauer said. “Even before the price of gas went up people were wondering if these big SUVs were a fad, but I think the genie is out of the bottle. Americans have been spoiled with big, roomy utilitarian vehicles, and I don’t think they want to give them up, even with the price of gas going up. They don’t want to give up on space and don’t want to burn too much fuel. So the ultimate fulfillment of all these needs is a high-mileage, fuel-efficient SUV, and that is what GM is going after with these two SUVs.”

 

Brauer expects hybrid technology to become more common in American vehicles, much as fuel-injection technology has become common.

 

Full article

 

 

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Full article

That will undoubtedly help them, but to say that 21/22 mpg is "impressive" is like a bad joke. The average non-hybrid car does better than that.

 

[BigSqwert]

That will undoubtedly help them, but to say that 21/22 mpg is "impressive" is like a bad joke. The average non-hybrid car does better than that.

No kidding. I got a chuckle out of that when I first read it.

[southsider2k5]

That will undoubtedly help them, but to say that 21/22 mpg is "impressive" is like a bad joke. The average non-hybrid car does better than that.

 

For those gigantic SUVs it is impressive.

[BigSqwert]

Groups challenge Toyota’s ‘green’ image

Automaker’s opposition to strict fuel economy rules is criticized

 

Updated: 47 minutes ago

 

WASHINGTON - Never mind that the Toyota Prius is popular with environmentally conscious motorists — some environmentalists still wonder if Toyota is living up to its image as a green automaker.

 

Environmental groups, led by the Natural Resources Defense Council, are challenging Toyota Motor Corp.’s opposition to strict fuel economy standards pending in Congress, a position the Japanese company shares with General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC.

 

During the past two weeks, about 8,300 NRDC activists sent e-mails and faxes to Toyota urging the company to support a Senate energy bill that would set a 35-mile-per-gallon requirement by 2020.

 

Other environmental groups, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists and the National Environmental Trust, are mobilizing to challenge Toyota for supporting a more modest approach on so-called CAFE standards that would require 32 to 35 mpg by 2022.

 

“They have a green halo, justifiably, and yet unbeknownst to their customers they’ve joined forces with the Detroit Three to argue against greener standards,” said Deron Lovaas, the NRDC’s vehicles campaign director.

 

Toyota contends the Senate bill would hurt the industry and notes that the alternative still would raise the standards up to 40 percent and give automakers more time to meet the goals. The company said it would respond to the messages it receives.

 

“For the first time, the industry has actually come together for a fuel economy increase, and everyone is pulling together in the same direction,” Toyota spokeswoman Martha Voss said Wednesday. “Toyota is working very hard behind the scenes to achieve the best standards possible, not only for the whole industry, but to meet the energy and environmental goals that we all share.”

 

Toyota, along with Honda Motor Co., has been a front-runner in producing fuel-efficient vehicles while emphasizing its hybrid technology. In addition to the popular gas-electric hybrid Prius, Toyota offers several hybrid models, including the hybrid Camry and hybrid Lexus models.

 

But the campaign underscores some discontent with the company in the environmental community, many of whom drive Prius hybrids. Toyota is challenging GM as the world’s biggest automaker and has aggressively promoted the Tundra pickup in the lucrative large truck segment.

 

“They market every night the Prius and the Toyota Camry — we’re the green car, huh? Then watch the football games, and they’re marketing the Toyota Tundra — like the biggest vehicle ever made,” Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a Camry hybrid owner, said Wednesday in a speech at an environmental conference.

 

“We’re actually going to name the vehicle the Tundra, after the thing that’s being destroyed in Alaska,” he said. “How ironic.”

 

LINK

[vandy125]

Just ran across this article today. There is a new thought on storing energy from wind farms during low demand times, and it involves using the geology of the land to do it. From the article, it can be used in 83% of the US.

 

Storing Energy Underground

 

I think that it sounds pretty sweet and love that they are doing it right here in Iowa.

[NorthSideSox72]

Just ran across this article today. There is a new thought on storing energy from wind farms during low demand times, and it involves using the geology of the land to do it. From the article, it can be used in 83% of the US.

 

Storing Energy Underground

 

I think that it sounds pretty sweet and love that they are doing it right here in Iowa.

I get an error when I click that link. I'd really like to see that story, though.

 

[BigSqwert]

I get an error when I click that link.

Likewise.

[NorthSideSox72]

LINK

Not really a surprise. Toyota is certainly out there in the lead on hybrid tech and more fuel efficient cars (along with Honda), but they do still have their truck market to worry about. Toyota is not greener than the rest because they like trees - its because they have superior R&D, they know that, so they are out on the cutting edge where they can beat their competition. The fact that it makes them "greener" might be a motivation too, but its not reason number 1.

 

[vandy125]

I get an error when I click that link. I'd really like to see that story, though.

 

 

Story showed up on Digg and may be getting too much traffic for the web site. Here is another link without the pretty graphics from the first.

 

Business Week Link

[NorthSideSox72]

Story showed up on Digg and may be getting too much traffic for the web site. Here is another link without the pretty graphics from the first.

 

Business Week Link

Very cool. That is huge, in fact. Go Sandia Labs!!!

 

Question for the local geologist... do you forsee any problems that might be caused by putting air under high pressure down into the earth like that, that far down? Any effect on water tables, or geological stability?

 

[BigSqwert]

Story showed up on Digg and may be getting too much traffic for the web site. Here is another link without the pretty graphics from the first.

 

Business Week Link

Bravo! I love reading about things like this.

[Balta1701]

Very cool. That is huge, in fact. Go Sandia Labs!!!

 

Question for the local geologist... do you forsee any problems that might be caused by putting air under high pressure down into the earth like that, that far down? Any effect on water tables, or geological stability?

Well, there are always potential problems with things like this. For one, you can always have an impermeable layer not be as impermeable as you thought, or have a break develop in it, and cause some major problems. I believe there was a natural gas storage site in the midwest that had issues like that about 10 years ago & wound up being a minor disaster. For another, any time you pump up the pressure in a rock storage area, you raise the potential for earthquakes by reducing the resistance of the rocks, so this isn't something you'd like to do without knowing the geology. But overall, as long as you're careful, there's no huge problem with doing this. Eventually you're bound to have one fail, but if it's only air, it's really not going to be toxic or explosive.

[BigSqwert]

Interesting article:

 

Could vertical farming be the future?

Farm able to feed 50,000 people could 'fit comfortably within a city block'

 

By Bryn Nelson

MSNBC contributor

Updated: 2 hours, 2 minutes ago

 

Rice on the seventh floor. Wheat on the twelfth. And enough food within an 18-story tower to feed a small city of 50,000.

 

Vertical farms, where staple crops could be grown in environmentally-friendly skyscrapers, exist today only in futuristic designs an on optimistic Web sites. Despite concerns over sky-high costs, however, an environmental health expert in New York is convinced the world has the know-how to make the concept a reality — and the imperative to do so quickly.

 

 

With a raft of studies suggesting farmers will be hard-pressed to feed the extra three billion people swelling the world’s ranks by the year 2050, Columbia University professor Dickson Despommier believes a new model of agriculture is vital to avoid an impending catastrophe.

 

“The reason why we need vertical farming is that horizontal farming is failing,” he said. If current practices don’t change by mid-century, he point outs, an area bigger than Brazil would need to become farmland just to keep pace with the demand.

 

Working the soil has always been an uncertain venture, and Despommier argues that the price of crop failure is growing ever steeper as the global population mushrooms. “The world,” he said, “is running out of resources faster than what it can replace.”

 

Full Article

[southsider2k5]

So why aren't the new lightbulbs being pushed so hard clearly warned about having mercury in them? Having a 2 year old and another one on the way, I don't think I feel the same about having them in my house now. All it takes is one dropped bulb to be exposed, correct?

 

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/...1008160623.aspx

 

The Dangers of Those Energy-Saving Light Bulbs

Energy-saving device advocated by Al Gore to 'reduce your carbon impact at home' poses mercury dangers and health risks.

 

By Jeff Poor

Business & Media Institute

10/8/2007 4:08:07 PM

 

It’s listed as the top thing you can do by Al Gore’s Web site on climate change to reduce your carbon impact at home – replacing a regular incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL).

 

But Gore doesn’t warn you about what could happen if you improperly dispose of them or even accidentally break one. The Washington Post’s Eco Wise columnist Eviana Hartman reminded readers, “they contain a small amount of mercury, a potent neurotoxin.”

 

“If you toss the bulbs in the trash, they're likely to break, potentially exposing workers to mercury or releasing it into groundwater and soil from landfills,” Hartman wrote in the October 7 Washington Post.

 

Hartman reported each CFL contains 5 mg of mercury. That doesn’t sound like a lot, but consider what happened to Brandy Bridges of Prospect, Maine when a CFL broke in her daughter’s bedroom.

 

“One broke,” Joseph Farah wrote in an April 16 WorldNetDaily story. “A month later, her daughter's bedroom remains sealed off with plastic like the site of a hazardous materials accident, while Bridges works on a way to pay off a $2,000 estimate by a company specializing in environmentally sound cleanups of the mercury inside the bulb.”

 

Hartman encouraged readers to recycle their dead CFLs or call for a “hazardous waste pickup.” She also gave tips for cleaning up CFLs if they break. However, the April 2 Waste News, a trade publication that focuses on issues pertaining to waste products and the environment, reported there has been little discussion about the environmental hazards because of the hype surrounding global warming hysteria:

 

“But warning consumers that they have to dispose of compact fluorescents with care may not be in the best interest of those trying to sell them, she [Ann Moore, recycling coordinator for Burlington County, NJ] said. Along with the additional expense and performance concerns, having to deal with disposing of the bulbs could give consumers another excuse not to buy them, she said.

 

‘You probably don’t want to do that because you’d hate to wreck the momentum,’ Moore said. ‘And that could kill the movement.’”

 

Another story about the dangers of CFLs and the lack of warning provided by the manufacturers was reported in the April 14 issue of The (Nashville) Tennessean.

 

 

“Everybody is throwing all this mercury into the garbage. No one knows this. This should be in bold print on the packaging,” Elizabeth Doermann said to The Tennessean after she broke a CFL and vacuumed it up, spreading the mercury contaminants throughout her home.

 

“She held a new package of the lights from which she had learned about the mercury, only after putting on glasses to read the little print. This was after the vacuuming incident,” Anne Paine of The Tennessean wrote. “A square, dwarfed by the bar code, contained the phrases ‘Mercury’ and ‘Manage in accordance with Disposal Laws,’ a phone number and a Web address. It did not say that used bulbs should be treated as household hazardous waste.”

[NorthSideSox72]

So why aren't the new lightbulbs being pushed so hard clearly warned about having mercury in them? Having a 2 year old and another one on the way, I don't think I feel the same about having them in my house now. All it takes is one dropped bulb to be exposed, correct?

 

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/...1008160623.aspx

The amount of mercury in those things is super-tiny. From what I read, its such a small amount that it pales in comparison to other things in your house. But I do not recall now where I read that. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on this can shed some more light.

 

[Balta1701]

The amount of mercury in those things is super-tiny. From what I read, its such a small amount that it pales in comparison to other things in your house. But I do not recall now where I read that. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on this can shed some more light.

Just grabbing from the Wikipedia entry:

CFLs, like all fluorescent lamps (e.g., long tubular lamps common in offices and kitchens), contain small amounts of mercury[26][27] and it is a concern for landfills and waste incinerators where the mercury from lamps may be released and contribute to air and water pollution. In the USA, lighting manufacturer members of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) have made a voluntary commitment to cap the amount of mercury used in CFLs:

 

Under the voluntary commitment, effective April 15, 2007, NEMA members will cap the total mercury content in CFLs of less than 25 watts at 5 milligrams (mg) per unit. The total mercury content of CFLs that use 25 to 40 watts of electricity will be capped at 6 mg per unit.[28]

 

Coal power plants are the "the largest uncontrolled industrial source of mercury emissions in Canada".[29] According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), (when coal power is used) the mercury released from powering an incandescent lamp for five years exceeds the total of (a) the mercury released by powering a comparably luminous CFL for the same period and (B) the mercury contained in the lamp.[30] It should be noted, however that the "EPA is implementing policies to reduce airborne mercury emissions. Under regulations issued in 2005, coal-fired power plants will need to reduce their emissions by 70 percent by 2018."[31].

 

Some manufacturers such as Philips and GE make very low-mercury content CFLs.[32] In 2007, Philips claimed its Master TL-D Alto range to have the lowest mercury content of any CFL on the market, at 2mg.[33]

 

Safe disposal requires storing the bulbs unbroken until they can be processed. Consumers should seek advice from local authorities. Usually, one can either:

 

* Return used CFLs to where they were purchased, so the store can recycle them correctly; or

* Take used CFLs to a local recycling facility.

 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency publishes guidelines on how to clean up after CFL tube ('bulb') breakage [34] and recommends that, in the absence of local guideline, CFLs be double-bagged in plastic bags before disposal.

 

The first step of processing CFLs involves crushing the bulbs in a machine that uses negative pressure ventilation and a mercury-absorbing filter or cold trap to contain and treat the contaminated gases. Many municipalities are purchasing such machines. The crushed glass and metal is stored in drums, ready for shipping to recycling factories.

 

According to the Northwest Compact Fluorescent Lamp Recycling Project, because household users have the option of disposing of these products in the same way they dispose of other solid waste, "a large majority of household CFLs are going to municipal solid waste". They additionally note that an EPA report on mercury emissions from fluorescent tube lamp disposal indicates the percentage of total mercury released from the following disposal options: municipal waste landfill 3.2%, recycling 3%, municipal waste incineration 17.55% and hazardous waste disposal 0.2%.

[southsider2k5]

The amount of mercury in those things is super-tiny. From what I read, its such a small amount that it pales in comparison to other things in your house. But I do not recall now where I read that. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on this can shed some more light.

 

That's good to know, but now how about when thousands of these things started getting crushed in the bottoms of landfills and start seeping into the water supply?

 

Seriously Mercury? In this day and age?

[NorthSideSox72]

Found some info...

 

CFL mercury content has been capped at 6 mg for certain bulbs, 5 mg for others. Philips makes low-mercury ones, at 2mg.

 

Interesting fact - the amount of extra mercury emitted from coal power plants to power a conventional lightbulb over a CFL is far more than the amount of mercury actually in a CFL bulb.

 

Here is an electrical manufacturing association website (companies who make bulbs of ALL types) about CFL mercury caps.

 

Here is the EPA info on what to do if you break one - doesn't sound any different than if you drop a thermometer or a battery starts leaking or the like.

 

Here is an NPR story on the mercury in the bulbs, and the danger associated with it. They ultimately result in much lower mercury emissions in total, but its key you recycle them, or else risk putting trash workers at risk.

 

And finally, Snopes does a little investigating on the risk level.

 

Hope that helps! Ultimately, the very small risk involved is far outweighed by the positives for myself or my family, so it wouldn't stop me from using them.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

That's good to know, but now how about when thousands of these things started getting crushed in the bottoms of landfills and start seeping into the water supply?

 

Seriously Mercury? In this day and age?

If the amount of mercury being polluted actually was a net increase due to those bulbs, I'd be right there upset with you. But as it will actually decrease, I'll take it.

 

Now... one day in the future, if all the power generated for our homes (or most of it) is solar, wind, water or otherwise renewable energy-created, then we maybe need to re-evaluate. Hopefully by then, they will have been able to reduce the mercury substantially in them. I'm sure it will be decades before that energy pipe dream happens anyway, if ever.