Special Announcement: Solar is Now Cheaper than Coal

Yes, that's right. The race has been on for the company who could break the United States of their coal addiction, with even Google jumping in to get it started. A Silicon Valley start-up called Nanosolar has cracked the code and developed what the blog Solve Climate is calling "the iTunes of solar." They shipped their first solar panels at $1 a piece. How did they manage to make solar panels so cheap? They focused on the manufacturing process instead of working on the technology, as so many others who are trying to lower the cost. Nanosolar had developed a way to speed up the manufacturing process, by printing solar cells on sheets of aluminum. Bot only does this breakthrough speed up the process by a hundred fold, it also reduces the amount of material by as much. Nanosolar CEO Martin Roscheisen is reserving the first three commercially-viable panels. One is staying on display at company HQ; one has been donated to San Jose's Tech Museum of Innovation. And the other is on sale at eBay, according to the article.
Check out the original story in Solve Climate, and have a chuckle at how much people are willing to pay on eBay for the limited edition release of the $1 solar panel.

Nuclear Energy Revisited

Friday I attended a lecture on Nuclear Energy as a green power source, hosted by the Long Now Foundation. Nuclear energy is green? So say the experts, Dr Gwyneth Cravens and Dr. Richard Anderson.
Coal is the largest source of energy in our country, accounting for 51% of the total production. Nuclear is at 20%, hydor is 7%, and alternatives make up the rest of the whole. Hydro is currently maxed out, and coal accounts for an estimated 24,000 deaths in the United States per year, in addition to the damage atmospherically.
According to the experts, when comparing the environmental advantages of nuclear energy over coal, there is no doubt that nuclear energy is a safe and viable alternative. Uranium is plentiful and readily available. The size of the power plants is extremely small compared to the vastness of coal plants. Nuclear can provide the base load required of power plants, the available power so when demands spike, there is enough power to meet immediate demands. Unfortunately, wind and solar cannot provide the base loads. And nuclear energy creates virtually no atmospheric pollution, in fact, it creates hardly any waste at all. The amount of spent energy left over if a person received their power from nuclear their entire life could fill one coke can. With coal, a person would fill nine train cars full of waste in their lifetime. Now multiply that by the number of people out there. Where will we put all that waste?
One of the big concerns about nukes is their potential to expose people to radiation. The lecturer said she had her fears, and researched this possibility quite extensively. The Three Mile Island accident resulted in successful containment and cleanup, and injured no one. The nuclear plants she visited emit approximately .09 millarems per year (millarems is a factor that calculated human safety). She pointed out an interesting fact- there are .1 millarems in a banana. In some urban areas in the United States, the Bay Area for example, people are exposed to thousand times more millarems per year, from naturally occurring radiation.
Cigarettes expose humans to astounding amounts of radiation, and the lecturer claimed that most nuclear scientists would recommend quitting smoking as the number one way to reduce your radiation exposure.
Chernobyl seems to be the best example of a bad accident involving nuclear power. Indeed, Chernobyl is not a good example of potential accidents, as it was built without any containment fields, without the proper subterranean design found elsewhere, built from inferior materials, and without the proper safety features. It was the worst of the worst, and when the reactor began to malfunction, workers who were not properly trained interrupted the only safety measure that would have prevented the meltdown- they turned off the water.
The threat of terrorism is negligible, according to the experts. They pointed out the incredible safety meausres at plants, the building construction that would stop any air attack, and the fact that stealing the enriched fuel for making bombs would be impossible to accomplish, as the sheer weight of the material and the immediate personal danger alone are too gargantuan.
Its not life someone can slip a piece of enriched uranium in their pocket and sneak off with it.
The last point of the lecture was the disposal of nuclear waste. First off, nuclear engery is now 98% efficient when spent fuels are reprocessed. This means that previously disposed materials could be reclaimed and reused. That technology is always improving. A new storage facility in New Mexico, located in a salt deposit thousands of feet below the earth's surface has been created by the military, and the only thing stopping us from safely storing material here is politics.
It seems the biggest obstacle to creating more power plants and reducing the effects of coal and global warming are public opinion and the fact that we are producing no young nuclear physicists. We simply cannot ramp up quickly enough to slow global warming.
While I must admit I was surprised, and still hold some skepticism about the safety of storing spent nuclear waste, I found myself imagining a world where the power was nuclear. It seems like something we greenies should definitely start looking into, instead of immediately rejecting the idea, as I did once.
For a link to the Long Now Lecture Series
For the Wiki on Three Mile Island

The Energy Debate is Heating Up

As I perused through my greenblogs and news mags this morning, I kept seeing a theme emerging among the articles- the power play. How are we going to create the energy to meet our demands without contributing to global warming? Once again, the nuclear debate is floating to the surface.
As a Gen-Xer (hey, how come nobody uses that phrase any more?) I was taught that nuclear energy was bad stuff. Dangerous, expensive, and most importantly, bad for the environment. Californians agreed, and put a moratorium on new nuclear plants some decades ago. Countries around the world and especially Europe banned new plants or completely blocked the use of nuclear power after the Chernobyl incident.
Last year I attended a debate on nuclear energy here in San Francisco. The two speakers were Peter Schwartz and Ralph Cavanaugh, old friends who considered themselves on the same side in the fight against global warming, but differed in their opinions on how to fuel the future.
I entered the debate with a strong feeling about nuclear energy as evil, and left thinking that it may be a possible option. How could this be? Now, before any of you out there rip my blog from your bookmarks folder, hear me out.
Remember that nuclear energy is a technology. Technology is defined as a development that changes over time, improving as it progesses. Look at computers and how they've developed over the years. We banned the technology in California because at the time it was dangerous and inefficient, but since then nuclear technology has made significant improvements in the amount of energy extracted from the process, in reducing the waste left over, and in safety. When you look at the amount of raw material required to generate the power, it out performs any other sources of energy except the sun.
I'm not the only one reexamining nukes.
Jesse Ausubel of the Rockefeller University in New York recently wrote an article claiming that renewable energy will further degrade the environment. "Nuclear energy is green," he claims, "Considered in Watts per square meter, nuclear has astronomical advantages over its competitors." He sites proportions of scale as a big reason wind farms and biofuels simply won't work.
The Long Now Foundation has a lecture on the cue for September 14th with Gwyneth Cravens and Rip Anderson to discuss the nuclear power debate.
And while they aren't necessarily pointing directly towards nukes, many environmentalists like myself are starting to get uneasy about the potential disasters we may face when our depleted agricultural lands are put into overdrive with the growing biofuel demands.
I haven't yet satisfied my desire for clarity before I make any proclamation to be pro-nuclear. But I encourage you all to get yourselves up to date on the issue if you haven't looked at it recently, so you can make informed decisions in the subject. (Even if I can't get off the fence.)
Places to start:
Wikipedia, of course! Nuclear Power
The Long Now and Nuclear Power, Climate Change and the Next 10,000 Years
The CSM looks at nuclear power in light of recent earthquakes near power plants
The Sydney Morning Herald looks at the hazards of coal plants
And check out my previous articles on the subject of alternative energy for more links
May 14th, More Warnings on the Push for Biofuels
May 5th, Wind Power and its Effects...
April 30th, Why Care About the Farm Bill?

And the Largest Crop in the United States is...

Turf grass.
When Christie Milesi moved from Italy to the United States, she was immediately smitten with our lawns. She loved the way the green grass of our urban lawns stayed defiantly lush, long past the browning hillsides of native Montana prairie. While finishing her PhD, she enrolled in a business class, where students were expected to come up with viable business ideas. Her idea was to create a service that monitored rain and let people know when and how much to water their lawns. That was when she made an important discovery- the total amount of lawn in the United States was unknown.
So she submitted a research proposal to NASA Earth System Science Fellowship Program to produce a national estimate of lawn area and the impact of those lawns on ecological factors like the carbon and water cycles.
What she found was astounding. When most people think of fertilizer and irrigation, do they think of agriculture or our landscapes? It turns out that there is more lawn than corn grown in the US, a crop that creates no food, yet uses untold amounts of water, fertilizer and other resources.
Check out the story at the NASA Earth Observatory website. Then zoom around a little- this is a great source for cool info.

Geothermal Energy Explained

I'm working on a LEED certified Science Center at a community college, and one of this buildings' features is geothermal energy to supply the huge amount of energy required to power the laboratory ventilation systems. I didn't know much about geothermal when I started the project, and today I found an article that may help to explain some of the mysteries of this renewable energy source.
There are two main types of systems for geothermal energy.
The first is geothermal exchange, a low cost solution that can reduce the heating and cooling costs of a building by 70%. This is basically a large coil that winds its way below the surface of the soil and then makes its way into the foundation of a house, and uses the constant thermal mass of the earth to either heat a home in winter or cool it in the summer.
The second is enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), and involves drilling to utilize the heat of the earth's core, several kilometers down with temperatures of over 465 degrees fahrenheit. This extreme temperature drives steam to turbines to produce energy.
According to the article, "In 2003, this type of geothermal power supplied just 0.416 percent of the world's energy, reports the International Energy Agency (IEA), indicating tremendous potential for expansion... Last year, an MIT study evaluated the potential for EGS in the United States, concluding it could supply a substantial portion of the country's future electricity, probably at competitive prices and with minimal environmental impact. With an investment of $1 billion over the next fifteen years, geothermal could provide at least 10 percent of U.S. electricity by 2050, says the expert panel behind the report."
The initial costs of geothermal systems can be expensive, but these systems are not subject to fluctuating fuel costs. The potential for geothermal to replace many of our current power supply systems is huge.
For years a friend of mine has been telling me about the little town of Klamath Falls and its use of geothermal to heat city buildings and even keep the streets and sidewalks free of snow in the winter. I finally googled the place, and found a cool site with schematics on the systems.
Check out Klamath Falls, yo.
For the original geothermal article at ENN

Banning the Bottle

Last night I attended the first meeting of a new landscape design group, and on my way I stopped at a supermarket to buy goodies to bring to the meeting. The woman at the checkout immediately put my one item in a plastic grocery bag, and I found myself cringing yet again over the plastic bag issue.
"I don't need a bag, thanks. I don't want to throw away the plastic." I say as nicely as I can muster.
She says to me, a little defensively, "I know what you mean. But they're great for lining small garbage cans. "
"Unfortunately, they're also great for lining the streets," I say, wishing that all cities everywhere would ban the plastic and follow San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome's lead.
I'm please to say that Newsome is at it again, and this time it's single serving bottled water.
I hear a lot lately about the folly of bottled water. I once drank Calistoga by the case, reassuring myself that I was doing the right thing by sticking with a California-based water company. Less transport, local, and staying away from a large soda manufacturing company, all the warm fuzzies. But then I read the label carefully and did a little research, and found that Calistoga is nothing more than tap water.
It turns out many of our bottled water is merely tap water with minerals and bubbles added. Did you know there is a serious water shortage in FIJI? Then where did that water come from? And San Pelligrino sparkling has the gas added.
There's all that plastic for the bottles, and questions about whether or not that PET plastic is safe for consumption. Now think of all that tap water being trucked all over the world, and the amount of energy that must take. Why not just drink water from the tap?
I know it's a hard sell for those of you who love the taste of your favorite brand, but the cons are stacking up.
Mayor Gavin Newsome has an interview in Newsweek from last week outlining his new plan to ban the bottle, and why. Love him!
And when you're finished reading that, check out another article I serendipitously received ten minutes ago from a friend on the dirty secrets of bottled water.
Newsweek and Newsome
Message in a Bottle with Fast Company .com

Order of Magnitude

This link was sent to me by a friend this week, the headline she posted it under was "Madness" and I couldn't agree more. How many cigarettes does it take to hook young teens? How many plastic bottles are used every five minutes in the US? Artist Chris Jordan shows a portrait of America from statistics, and creates visual images that are both beautiful and terrible all at once. His current show is called Running the Numbers- An American Self-Portrait, and will be exhibited at the Von Lintel Gallery in New York from June 14th to the end of July. But you can check it out online if you click on this (LINK).

China Surpasses US in Carbon Emmissions

In case you haven't read the news lately and didn't see this on the front page of all the reports, China has surpassed the US in coal burning CO2 emissions, according to the Guardian. I won't go into the nasty details, you'll have to read the story for yourself this time.

China overtakes US as world's biggest CO2 emitter

John Vidal and David Adam
Tuesday June 19, 2007
Guardian Unlimited


Cyclists pass a factory in Yutian in China's north-west Hebei province. Photograph: Peter Parks/AFP

China has overtaken the United States as the world's biggest producer of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, figures released today show.

The surprising announcement will increase anxiety about China's growing role in driving man-made global warming and will pile pressure onto world politicians to agree a new global agreement on climate change that includes the booming Chinese economy. China's emissions had not been expected to overtake those from the US, formerly the world's biggest polluter, for several years, although some reports predicted it could happen as early as next year.

---

But according to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, soaring demand for coal to generate electricity and a surge in cement production have helped to push China's recorded emissions for 2006 beyond those from the US already. It says China produced 6,200m tonnes of CO2 last year, compared with 5,800m tonnes from the US. Britain produced about 600m tonnes.

Jos Olivier, a senior scientist at the government agency who compiled the figures, said: "There will still be some uncertainty about the exact numbers, but this is the best and most up to date estimate available. China relies very heavily on coal and all of the recent trends show their emissions going up very quickly." China's emissions were 2% below those of the US in 2005. Per head of population, China's pollution remains relatively low - about a quarter of that in the US and half that of the UK.

The new figures only include carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production. They do not include sources of other greenhouse gases, such as methane from agriculture and nitrous oxide from industrial processes. And they exclude other sources of carbon dioxide, such as from the aviation and shipping industries, as well as from deforestation, gas flaring and underground coal fires.

Dr Olivier said it was hard to find up to date and reliable estimates for such emissions, particularly from countries in the developing world. But he said including them would be unlikely to topple China from top spot. "Since China passed the US by 8% [in 2006] it will be pretty hard to compensate for that with other sources of emissions."

To work out the emissions figures, Dr Oliver used data issued by the oil company BP earlier this month on the consumption of oil, gas and coal across the world during 2006, as well as information on cement production published by the US Geological Survey. Cement production, which requires huge amounts of energy, accounts for about 4% of global CO2 production from fuel use and industrial sources. China's cement industry, which has rapidly expanded in recent years and now produces about 44% of world supply, contributes almost 9% of the country's CO2 emissions. Dr Olivier calculated carbon dioxide emissions from each country's use of oil, gas and coal using UN conversion factors. China's surge beyond the US was helped by a 1.4% fall in the latter's CO2 emissions during 2006, which analysts say is down to a slowing US economy.

The announcement comes as international negotiations to produce a new climate treaty to succeed the Kyoto protocol when it expires in 2012 are delicately poised. The US refused to ratify Kyoto partly because it made no demands on China, and one major sticking point of the new negotiations has been finding a way to include both nations, as well as other rapidly developing economies such as India and Brazil. Tony Blair believes the best approach is to develop national markets to cap and trade carbon, which could then be linked.

Earlier this month, China unveiled its first national plan on climate change after two years of preparation by 17 government ministries. Rather than setting a direct target for the reduction or avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions, it now aims to reduce energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 20% by 2010 and to increase the share of renewable energy to some 10%, as well as to cover roughly 20% of the nation's land with forest.

But it stressed that technology and costs are major barriers to achieving energy efficiency in China, and that it will be hard to alter the nation's dependency on coal in the short term. What China needs, said a government spokesman, is international cooperation in helping China move toward a low-carbon economy. Chinese industries have been hesitant to embrace unproven clean coal and carbon capture technologies that are still in their infancy in developed countries.

China has overtaken the United States as the world's biggest producer of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, figures released today show.

The surprising announcement will increase anxiety about China's growing role in driving man-made global warming and will pile pressure onto world politicians to agree a new global agreement on climate change that includes the booming Chinese economy. China's emissions had not been expected to overtake those from the US, formerly the world's biggest polluter, for several years, although some reports predicted it could happen as early as next year."

this article was originally printed in Guardian Unlimited June19, 2007

Jet Stream Provides Energy

Scientists at Stanford, along with researchers from Canada and Australia, are teaming up to look at the earth's most powerful form of power, and its not the sun. It's the Jet Stream. They believe that tapping only 1% of the jet stream will provide enough energy to power the entire earth. The question is, how do we harness all that power?

"There is a remarkable variety of designs for high-flying wind machines, some of which resemble blimps or futuristic helicopters. Others look like Alexander Calder-style mobile sculptures. An early, 240-kilowatt prototype of a wind machine could weigh 1,140 pounds and have four rotors, each of which might be 35 feet wide from tip to tip and would spin up to five times per second."

So far only lab prototypes have been tested, but some of the members of the team are optimistic that the technology will be available in the next 15 years. Others, like atmospheric scientist at Stanford Ken Caldeira believe it will take a little longer, "In the 19th century, it took 25 years for oil to replace 1 percent of the coal market. The energy infrastructure tends to evolve slowly.The challenge is developing a device that can withstand the extreme forces in the jet stream such as light exposure, then sendiing that energy back and converting it to a form we can use."

Other issues will be safety for air travel, birds, and efficiency issues.

for the full article in SF Chronicle

Wind Power Law Undermines Individual's Rights to Operate Turbines

According to a post in Green Options blog, there's a new bill in Congress called the Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act "The bill, according to the nonprofit Alliance to Save Energy, promotes alternative energy and efficiency, including a green building program that would require all major new facility construction projects funded in whole or in part through the Department of the Interior, National Ocean Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, or the Forest Service to meet or exceed silver level LEED standards."
But a provision in the bill, the Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act, has some clean power officials worried.
The law will require the registration of all turbines, no matter how old, to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and gives them the right to inspection without notice. Penalties would be stiff for failure to comply, up to $50,000 per citing. Some opponents say this would create difficulties for individuals wishing to put up turbines on their homes and lands. They maintain that a separate group, Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee, will be better able to regulate turbine use in the states.
for full posting on Green Options

Young Scientists Tackle Worlds Biggest Issues: First Malaria, Second Fossil Fuels

Amyris Biotechnologies has developed an inexpensive cure for malaria, set to be released in 2008. Their next mission is to use the same technology to solve the world's energy problems.
The company technology results from years of research by Jay Keasling, a Professor of Chemical Engineering and Bioengineering at UC Berkeley. During Keasling's position as Director of the Physical Biosciences Division of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, he has made great discoveries for the world of biosynthetics through his research with E. Coli.
Keasling, along with three graduates from Berkeley, founded the Amyris in 2003, and were quickly awarded grants by the Bill Gates Foundation for their work with genetically modified E. coli that will cure malaria.
The way it works, to put it simply, is that they've engineered the bacteria to produce artemisin, a plant drug occuring naturally in Artemesia. The price tag for the natural drug is $2.40 US, a price far too high for those suffering in third-world countries. According to the World Health Organization, malaria infects somewhere between 300 million to 500 million people every year. Africa and Asia are hit the hardest, with 1.5 million deaths, and most of those are children. This new, genetically modified drug will cost $.25, and is set to be available world wide as soon as 2008.
So what's next for Amryis? They've just received another grant from the Gates Foundation, this time their goal is to tackle biofuels. They're looking at how fuels are designed from nature, and will attempt to ferment sugars into fuel.
Today's biofuels just aren't scaleable for a global market. They currently require too much energy up front, and are limited by the organic raw material. The company is looking to developing a process by which a wide variety of plant sources can be used. Other constraints will be a fuel that can be readily used in automobiles, diesel and jet engines. The company has the additional goal of producing a fuel that is insoluble in water so that current pipeline infrastructure will need no retrofitting.

Technology like this could be the key to creating a fuel that we no longer need to wage war for, while ensuring our agricultural lands are preserved for future generations.

for article in New York Times

I'm Changing the Climate...

...I'd like to think for the better.
I make my living helping others find sustainable solutions. I work towards the same when I'm at home. I've reduced my commute to walking downstairs to the office in my house, and carpool when I can. I've replaced old lightbulbs with low energy ones, ride my bike in town, shop from local farmers, and I even water my plants outside with my bathwater when I'm feeling particularly guilty.
But I know I still am having a negative impact on the climate. I share what all humans have- a carbon footprint. Your carbon footprint is simply a measure of the amount of natural resources you consume and a measure of their environemntal impact. I found a website that compares my energy use to others in the country by asking questions about how often I drive, if I ride a bike, etc. I measured up well, at 50% of what my neighbors are consuming. But if everyone on the planet lived like me, we'd still need 2.5 planets to provide all those resources.
Every time I get into my car, I can't help but be reminded that I'm contributing to global warming. I'd buy a hybrid, but my truck still runs great, and so far I haven't seen an electric one, which is what I'm really holding out for. What's a girl like me to do?
I finally did it- I bought myself a terra pass to offset my carbon emmissions. What's a terra pass, you ask? Basically, I let the website calculate my carbon footprint, then I pay a yearly fee. Mine was $25, and I took into account my flying miles as well as driving. That money funds projects that wouldn't ordinarily be funded, building renewable energy projects like solar and wind power plants.
Terrapass is just one of the many companies out there who do this sort of personal carbon cap and trade. They were the first I heard of, and have strict criteria for the projects they fund. There are other companies out there, but make sure the one you choose is legit, and that they fund projects that ordinarily wouldn't get funding, so you don't end up lining the pockets of bureaucrats.
Reduce your own carbon footprint, by doing the simple things at home. And then offset your carbon. It's good for you.
Find out your carbon footprint at myfootprint.org
For a list of things you can do to reduce yor footprint go to Carbonfootprint

More Warnings on the Push for Biofuels

Both the BBC and the Christian Science Monitor have articles this week on the dangers of biofuels. It's a subject I've written about a lot recently, so I won't go into it too heavily, except to say that oil is an almost infinite amount of plants and animals compressed for an almost infinite amount of time into a substance with amazing, almost magical energy. If you think we can grow that amount of energy on our fields and still provide food for all the humans and animals here on the planet now, you're more of an optimist than I.
BBC's Environmental Warning on Biofuels
CSM's Biofuels Show Promise, but also Present Problems

EPA vs. the Endangered Species Act

Two cases that may redefine the Endangered Species Act are set to be decided in the Supreme Court- National Association of Homebuilders v. Defenders of Wildlife, and Defenders of Wildlife v. Environmental Protection Agency. The cases go back to 2002, when the EPA gave Arizona the power to legislate its own water permits for housing developments. As a direct result the San Pedro River, a sensitive wildflife corridor and home to such endangered species as the southwestern willow flycatcher, went dry in 2005.
How could the EPA turn its back on endangered species? Studies were conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service, who expressed concerns about threats to species, but they went ahead and approved Arizona's independant rights because they had met all of the requirements set by the Clean Water Act. In court, the EPA attested that they met all of the federal requirements under the Endangered Species Act when they enlisted the Fish and Wildlife Service, but the Court of Appeals agreed that the EPA shirked its duties.
I found this report while sitting in the dentist's office last week. The headline reads "Is the Endangered Species Act in Danger?"
I think the U.S. News and World Report has it all wrong. While the court cases may set to define the battle, when the water runs out, there clearly are no winners. If Arizona met its criteria for the Clean Water Act but then drained its rivers dry, then some serious revision needs to go into how the laws are being legislated.

Wind Power and its Effect on Humans and the Environment

Wind power has been hailed as an alternative to oil, and a big push is being felt in Capitol Hill to fund these power sources that produce no carbon in their energy production. Little has been done to research the impacts wind turbines will have on the environment, until the White House Council on Environmental Quality began requesting more information from several agencies. A report released on Thursday suggests windmills aren't terrible bird killers, despite the common misconception held by many people. The report was released by by the Academy of Sciences' National Research Council, after concerns that wind generators would disrupt migration patterns and put many threatened species of birds at greater risk. The report found that a negligible number of migratory birds are effected by turbines, and in fact the greatest risk to bird populations are cats, windows and powerlines which when combined account for nearly three billion deaths a year. However, localized raptor populations were impacted by windmills due to their tendency to seek out windy sites from which to hunt for prey.
The scientists on the research team expressed the most concern over bats, since their analysis revealed more bat deaths than expected. Initial studies suggest that the electromagnetic fields created by turbines lure the bats to wind fields and into the spinning blades of turbines, but there are many other hypotheses as well. Compounded by unrelated declines in many species of bats on the east coast, this is bad news for the elusive night creatures. The study reported up to 41 bats killed for every megawatt of power from forested ridge tops on the east coast, while in the Midwest the numbers fall to less than 9 deaths per megawatt.
Another subject of debate with turbines is their impact on the aesthetics of the hillsides they populate. There have been suggestions that uniformity will call less attention to them.
I myself wonder why all this hub-ub about aesthetics. We live with power lines, pavement, pollution, and people are concerned that hillsides filled with turbines will create an eyesore? Get real- just adjust your paradigm of what defines beauty! The real question is, how will wind power scale if our power needs continue to grow? How will wind power effect the necessary winds of local climates?
The NAS study points out the necessity for further research to weed out the real cause of turbine-generated bat deaths and raptor habitat, as well as further development of turbine blades that will be more appealing to the American public. Improvements have already been made over the years resulting in higher efficiency, less unwanted noise, and less risk to animals, and we've only just begun.
NAS report
for related article at SF Chronical
for a comprehensive article on wind turbines

Why Care about the Farm Bill?

Congress is set to make key decisions in the 2007 Farm Bill that will have far-reaching impacts on food and the environment. edible San Francisco writer Bonnie Azab Pwell interviews Marin Agricultural Land Trust (MALT) co-founder Ralph Grossi and tells us why we all should be involved, whether you're a farmer or not.
The last time Congress sat down and hammered away at the Farm Bill was 2002, at a time when Global Warming was still a debate at Capitol Hill. This time around, it is clear that we need to find alternatives to oil, and many lobbyists are pushing for greater funding for alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodeisel. This rush to push these energies may seem like everyone's starting to get it that something must be done, but are bio fuels the magic answer?
Not likely, say many experts. According to Grossi, "Biofuel's impact on the environment will be significant. Land that is currently been strictly in conservation use, under the Conservation Reserve Program, will be under a lot of pressure to go back into row-crop production. We expect that a few million acres will probably migrate back into crop production. That's a loss, particularly to wildlife habitat. Second, because of the high proces driven by renewable fuels primarily, it is now profitable to grow crops on less productive land. We'll see some more migration of cropping into fragile landscapes...those landscape are not in production for a reason: they have low productivity and require a lot more fertilizer, or have high erosion rates..."
Grossi believes a big overhaul of the Farm Bill is in order. Currently, there is a subsidy built into funding commodities that don't sell as well in the marketplace, and often farmers are chosing their crops based on those subsidies rather than on their market values. This taxes the whole system that was intended to be a safety net should farmers have a bad year. Grossi beleives that if prices were set at marekt rates, subsidies could go towards other areas, like land conservation.

Unfortunately I couldn't find the article online, but if you'd like a hard copy of the Spring issue, go to www.ediblesanfrancisco.net

California Faces Drought Year

The verdict is out- the lack of winter rain this year has left county reservoirs at lows not seen since the 1992 drought. Southern California saw the least amount as rainfall fell at 50% below normal in some counties. Many of Northern California's reservoirs are reporting normal levels after experiencing unusually high amounts of rain last year, but officials say there are still reasons to conserve. It is unknown for certain if we could face more severe drought in the future as climates shift. With the dry summer, the entire Northwest Coast will most likely face greater risk of fire in open space and forests.
Landscapes account for 70-80% of residential water used in the state, so water restrictions may be likely.
for KQED Podcast

So How Important is Water Conservation?

So what are the facts about water use in the United States, and why is it so important to find ways to conserve water?
I'm working on a project right now where I need to refamiliarize myself with the LEED standards for landscape. According to my latest LEED manual, Americans withdraw approximately 340 billion gallons of fresh water per day from rivers, streams and reservoirs. Wow, that's a lot of toilet flushes! In addition to surface sources, water is drawn from aquifers. In some parts of the US, the drain on aquifers have drawn water levels 100 feet lower in the ground. A very small amount of water is actually returned to the natural sources, creating a deficit every year of 3,700 billion gallons. Yes, that's 3,700 billion. As water tables get lower, finding water becomes more difficult, for humans and local forests, farms, and watersheds.
Landscaping accounts for 30% of water consumed in the US, (with some places like California using as much as 80% for their yards.)
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 mandated that water-conserving plumbing fixtures be installed to reduce water use in residential and commercial buildings. The amount of water used in agriculture has also decreased since the 50's, when water conservation policies began to be developed.
According to LEED, further steps to reduce water demands can save 30% or more each year.
Recycled water can be used for landscape irrigation, flushing toilets, custodial purposes and building systems. Capturing rainwater from the roof can also be used for these purposes.
Savings can reach thousands per year, resulting in almost immediate payback for water conservation infrastructure. As the cost of water increases (it already has gasoline beat) the savings return will also increase.
Don't know about LEED but want to know more? Check out their website!
American Rainwater Catchment Systems
Greywater Systems, Compost Toilets, Rain Collection
The Irrigation Association

A Case for Grey Water

For those of you who aren't familiar with the term, grey water is classified in Wikipedia as water that has passed through the home and down the drain, minus the toilet water.
New Mexico and Arizona are among the states who have welcomed the use of grey water for landscape irrigation, so long as participants register their systems and agree to follow guidelines. New Mexico lead the way after a ten year study of illegal systems by a grassroots group seeking to gain GW's legal approval. The study found no serious health risks to humans when GW was used properly.
Never seen a grey water system? Well, neither have I. Many municipalities and even states have bans on using greywater, some of these bans date back to when sanitation issues were of the most concern. With modern technology, these greywater systems are completely safe, but it takes time to change the laws. I hope that will all change soon, as landscapes account for 70-80% of residential water used. It makes sense to recycle our water, and so far the biggest obstacle seems to be the cost to get all the proper permits.


for a database of Greywater safety, guidelines and legislation by state and regions
check out Rana Creek, a company who uses grey water on many projects

Hellish Beauty

I listen to audio casts whenever I have to be in my internal combustion, gas-consuming beastie.
Lately I've been downloading Air America's Ecotalk. Last week they featured photographer Chris Jordan. The pictures tell the story best, but his work focuses on bringing to light the environmental destruction of our consumerism. He visits sites where the debris of planned obsolescence piles up: the mountains of cell phones, cars, circuit boards and such. Often the number of objects mirrors the number of these items that are thrown away every day. His images are wonderously shocking, and point the finger back at us for the responsibility.

for the audiocast at EcoTalk