Water Saving Ideas Now! Raise your voice against plastic waste!

More and more people are raising their voice against Bottled Water!

Starting in 2011, the town of Concord in MA has banned the sale of bottled water in an effort to make their town more green.

Under the new law, the sale of plastic bottles that are not reusable will be banned. The sale of containers that can be refillable, such as aluminum or stainless steel containers, will still be available for sale. Those who opposed the law said that this would only lead people to buy more unhealthy options, such as soda or juice bottles. They claim that people will still buy bottled water, they would just buy it from other sources. All of these are very weak arguments, and we believe that given this incentive and education, people will start avoiding expensive, unsustainable bottled water.

Is the Price of Bottled Water Fair?

I'll be polite and answer with a plain "No!"

Most people do not realize the amount of money they spend on bottled water and the environmental impact of this decision. Take for example Coca-Cola's Dasani bottled water, which comes in 20 ounce plastic bottles and costs on average $1. You are paying 5 cents per ounce or $6.4 on the gallon. Compare this to the value of a gallon of tap water at approximately $0.006. That is, bottled water is sold by at least 1000 times its real value. Or, if you get fancy with imported water, it may be up to 10,000 times overpriced.

But isn't Bottled Water Safer and Better Quality?

That's simply false.

In theory the FDA is in charge of regulating the bottled water in the USA. However, 60 - 70% of all bottled water in the US never cross state lines and is therefore exempt from the oversight of the FDA. Tap water in the US has more oversight (by the EPA), being inspected on a regular basis for bacteria and toxic chemicals. Additionally, the EPA has more stringent rules than the FDA. You can easily check the tap water quality in your community.

Are There Any Alternatives?

water bottle filterOf course there are viable water saving tips and ideas. Say for example you buy an aluminum or stainless steel container (on average, they cost around $25 dollars). It costs you only $0.0012 dollars to fill it up, so by the 17th refill you will have paid for the bottle and by the end of the year you will have saved more than $600 dollars! You can have these great savings without having to give up great taste and convenience.

Most bottled water companies use great marketing and advertisments to make consumers believe their water comes from beautiful, fresh pools of spring water. This advertisment can be misleading. For instance,  the water source does not always come from pristine water sources. Just to name a few, Dasani and Acquafina water bottles are just filtered tap water. Government estimates state that around 1/4 of the bottled water is actually bottled tap water!



What's the Environmental Cost of our Bottled Water Affair?

The environmental impact of making plastic water bottles is huge. It is estimated that more than 17 million barrels of oil were used last year to meet the demand for bottled water in the US. This is enough to fuel 1 million cars for a year! Additionally, water bottles create 1.5 million tons of plastic waste per year, with only a 23% recycling rate. With the slow rate of decay of plastic, we are going to have to live with these plastic bottles for a long time.

Another overlooked source of waste is the water used to produce the plastic bottle. It is estimated that for every liter of water sold, a total of three litters are used in this process.  In the US, an average of 246,375,000 liters of water are used in the production of bottled water every year, plus the actual water inside the bottles.

As can be seen, water bottles are dangerous for your pockets and for the environment.

We were brought up believing that is was better to drink bottled water because it was more pure and prestine than tap water. This has led us as society to depend on bottled water, importing water from remote places such as Fiji.

The bottom line is that the tap water is as good, and in most cases better quality, than bottled water. It costs a minimal fraction of bottled water, and it is not as harmful to the environment.


So why do we buy Bottled Water? The bottled water companies are just really good at marketing. Compare this to the reasons against buying it and it's clearly not worth it.

[via joingreenrevolution.com]

Water Saving Ideas Now!

If you were to ask me what I think is the most imminent environmental problem of the day, my resolute answer would be: water scarcity. Don't get me wrong, by now you know that I truly care about climate change and our need to transition to sustainable energy solutions.

But water scarcity is an especially sensitive issue because:

1) Nobody seems to know about it...well, at least not in the developed world.

2) Tap water is so cheap in developed countries that users have little incentive to cut their demand by implementing water saving ideas.

Is Water Scarcity a problem of the 3rd World?

Most people actually think that water scarcity is a problem limited to the so called "underdeveloped world". That's only partly accurate and may prove shortsighted. The only sure thing is that people in the developing world are the ones presently suffering from day-to-day water scarcity.

The United Nations Developing Programme (UNDP) states that in order to meet their basic sanitation and drinking water needs, a person needs access to a minimum threshold requirement of 20 liters each day.  In its 2006 Human Development Report, "Beyond scarcity: Power, poverty and the global water crisis", the UNDP reports that in Europe people are using over 200 liters of water per day.

Do you want to take a guess of how much we are using in the U.S? It’s actually more than 400 liters per person, every day!
No wonder we are not feeling water scarcity yet. It’s great that we have access to clean water here but do we really need all that water? The answer is no, there is a tremendous amount of waste. And that presents us with an opportunity! There are innumerable water saving ideas that we can implement to cut down waste.

Water Scarcity as a Global Issue

Freshwater resources are not unlimited. Let me give you some statistics to convince you that water scarcity is a global problem:

» The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) on its 2007 Global Environmental Outlook
predicted that by 2025 water demand will be 56% greater than the available resources. As a result, 2/3 (66%) of the world population will live in areas of water shortages and 1/3 (33%) will live under complete water scarcity.

» We have been pumping groundwater at a rate that exceeds the natural replenishment rate. This means we are taking water out of the hydrological cycle, water that will not return to fill rivers, lakes and reservoirs.

» U.S. water problems: This problem is not limited to the third world. At least 36 out of the 50 states in the U.S. will experience water shortages within the next decade.

These stats are only the tip of the ice berg. In my “Water Saving Ideas Now!” series, I will cover issues with clean freshwater availability, pollution, human rights, heath care challenges, disease, agriculture, technology, economic development, and gender inequality, among others.

Are you surprised that all these issues are linked to the single topic of water management and distribution?
Well, water is life… no wonder it effects every part of our livelihood.
[via joingreenrevolution.com]

Where did all the oil in the Gulf go? Not as far as the media spin

Many media sources are framing the Gulf oil spill as a disaster approaching its end. The official breakdown of the released oil has left room for many to incorrectly interpret that over 40% of the oil has simply disappeared. The oil's vanishing act is a comforting thought but a false one. While some media subtly shift the meaning of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) official numbers, we've been thinking you would appreciate a straightforward breakdown.

The Third That Never Was
A typical way that the released oil is accounted for is by saying that 1/3 of the oil has been collected or mitigated by BP. While it sounds relieving, this stat is far from clear cut. Composed of the number of barrels removed by human effort, this third should be two categories: collected and mitigated. If we want to consider environmental impact, it must be taken apart even further.

-Collected 17% (833,000 barrels): By far, the oil collected is the most clear statistic and refers to oil captured directly from the wellhead. It is only half of the 1/3 that has been resolved by human effort. The other half has been "mitigated", a term that suggests that the oil's capacity to harm has been greatly reduced. That is, however, inaccurate.

-Skimmed 3% (147,000 barrels): Skimmed oil is the amount that has been removed from the surface of the water. The method of subsequent disposal/use is unclear. Collected and skimmed oil make up 1/5th of the spill and properly represent the amount that has been removed from the Gulf. The other 80% continues to have (unknown) consequences.

-Burned 5% (245,000 barrels or almost the Exxon Valdez spill): Far from neutralized oil harmlessly floating in the sea, this "mitigated" oil has been transferred from sea to air, endangering the health of all land-loving life, including human beings. Collecting, burning and skimming accounts for 25% of the 4.9 million barrels. Whether seen or unseen, 75% is still in the water.

-Chemically dispersed 8% (392,000 barrels): Banned in Britain, Corexit has been used to break apart the oil. Defenders say that its use has prevented many instances of oil-slicked animals. As it poses many health-risks, the full impact of this chemical has not yet been realized. 
Now You See it, Now You Don't
Another not-so-dreary way to discuss the spill is to say that over 40% has disappeared from the Gulf. It is comforting to think that somehow nature is cleaning it up herself, leaving us free to move on and think about other things, but that is simply untrue.

-Evaporated/Dissolved 25% (1,225,000 barrels): This would be two separate sections if there were a way to determine how much oil is in the air and the sea respectively.

-Naturally dispersed 16% (784,000 barrels): The other part of the 41% that has disappeared, naturally dispersed oil has simply broken up without the help of Corexit

Whether evaporated, dissolved or dispersed, the invisible 41% of the oil has not taken care of itself. Rather, it has become impossible to collect or neutralize. It is not gone, it is incognito. At the moment, these 1,125,000 microspoic barrels can make their way out of the water, but only by moving up the food chain.

Wait!, you say, what about oil-eating microbes!? Yes, there is a little critter that loves to munch on oil; no, it is not a magic bullet. With a feast of this magnitude, the microbes could reproduce uncontrollably, creating an oxygen-poor environment in which sea life could suffocate.

The Hangover
-Residual oil 26% (1,274,000 barrels): This oil is found in the form of tar balls, oil sheen, the slick washing ashore and sinking into the sand. It represents that amount of oil still in a collectible form.

Understanding the Numbers: a final note
Information on the Gulf oil spill is volatile. Sadly, no matter how certain a federal scientific agency insists it is, statistics are subject to radical changes. Whether it's the fate of released oil, the bizarrely low number of animal deaths or the barrels released daily, totals and tallies rise abruptly. As a rule of thumb, friends, it is best to bet high.

[via joingreenrevolution.com]

Do Luxury Hybrid Buyers Really Deserve Green Tax Credit?

In the federal government's quest to wean drivers off oil, should those handing out incentives discriminate against some car buyers? Do people who can afford a Porsche need taxpayer help to go green?

For the moment, price tag and paycheck don't matter when it comes to providing tax credits to buyers of hybrid cars. Several luxury brands qualify for credits worth thousands of dollars, but only if drivers buy before the end of the year.

For example, there's the 2011 Porsche Cayenne S Hybrid. This is Porsche's first hybrid, for around $67,000, and it's been hard to find in some places.

Porsche [POAHY  7.77    -0.36  (-4.43%)   ] USA tells CNBC 138 have been sold since launching about six weeks ago. Buy one by December 31 and you will qualify for a federal tax credit of $1,800. "The fuel consumption is phenomenal," says Steve Kienle of Walter's Porsche in Riverside, Calif.

"It receives 21 miles per gallon in the city and 25 miles per gallon on the highway, and it goes from zero to 60 in 6.1 seconds." He admits that at 21 mpg, "It's not your typical hybrid, but then again it's a Porsche."

Kienle says the tax credit is one reason people are taking a look at the Cayenne Hybrid, but it's not the only reason. However, it could make a difference in spurring sales over the next week. "I don't think anybody expects to get a tax credit on any luxury brand, but $1,800 savings is still $1,800 savings."

One person considering a purchase ASAP is Bob Scheussler, who already owns a Cayenne he bought at Walter's Porsche. However, he likes the idea of better gas mileage with the hybrid, since he often tows race cars. "It's a tax credit, not a tax deduction, so it's fully $1,800 off the bottom line of the taxes, and it's pretty nice."

The Porsche Cayenne S Hybrid isn't the only luxury car qualifying for a tax credit. A government website lists all the makes and models that qualify.

The 2011 BMW ActiveHybrid X6 qualifies for a credit of $1,550. Both the 2011 Cadillac Escalade Hybrid and Mercedes ML 450 Hybrid qualify for credits of $2,200.

The Nissan Altima Hybrid [NSANF  9.51    0.05  (+0.53%)   ] credit is $2,350. And the six-figure Tesla Roadster [TSLA  26.14    -3.95  (-13.13%)   ] qualifies for a tax credit of $7,500 (and the credit on the Tesla is still good next year).

Is it worth it? Kevin Song of Massachusetts ordered his Cayenne Hybrid in November and just recently took delivery—that's his SUV you see in the picture above. He loves it.

As for whether he should get rewarded by taxpayers, Song says, "I think any incentive that reduces our demand for foreign oil is a good one. Why not give the incentive to someone who is on the fence about buying a gas-powered Cayenne S or the Hybrid version?"

    * More on Green Cars and Technology Here

Song says he wasn't aware of the tax credit when he bought the hybrid, but he is certainly taking advantage of it. "Who turns down free money?"

[via cnbc.com]

New Power Source For Nuclear Plants In The Wings

With energy prices increases likely as economic growth picks up, the next-generation of nuclear energy could prove to be a cleaner, cheaper solution to keeping power prices down.

Several firms are working on new reactor technologies that replace the classic uranium fuel rods with less expensive and less polluting ones, composed of thorium.

“There are no technical hurdles,’ says John Kutsch, executive director of the Thorium Energy Alliance, an industry trade group, pointing out the process itself is already technologically proven.

“At this point, it’s more like a plumbing problem than a technology problem,” he says.

Thorium is a rare earth element that’s more easily found and more widely available than uranium, with a higher energy production capacity.

According to physics Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia, a ton of thorium could produce as much energy as 200 tons of uranium or 3,500,000 tons of coal.

That gives utilities operating thorium plants abundant energy from a cheap, easy-to-get fuel that creates few waste products itself, while providing a flexible design that allows for smaller power plants at lower price points.

Kutsch estimate you could launch a “fully fuelled and protected” 50MW thorium-powered nuclear for around $100 million.

According to The Keystone Center, an energy think tank, a new 1000MW uranium-fuelled reactor could cost up to $4 billion to build.

Even chaining 10-to-20 of the thorium plants together in a “farm” to rival the uranium plant’s output would halve its cost, coming in at $1-2 billion.

Like many new energy technologies, the time until commercialization is measured in years, not quarters.

Canon Bryan, CEO of thorium technology firm Thorium One, estimates thorium technologies have another 9 to 12 years to go before achieving commercial scale—although a 10-20MW test plant by Norwegian firm THOR Energy could be up and running in as little as five years.

Regulatory requirements are another hurdle to quick adoption.

While these companies and others, like Virginia-based Lightbridge [LBTR Unavailable () ], continue to test their own thorium-based designs, government approval of any new nuclear fuel design will require a lot of performance data “which currently doesn’t exist,” says Albert Machiels, senior technology executive at EPRI, the Electric Power Research Institute.

Machiels describes the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s, NRC, process to qualify new nuclear fuels as “pretty demanding.”

“At the earliest, you’re talking a decade or more,” he adds.

But while the NRC’s “Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future” still has a few months to draft a report that could lead to the biggest expansion of U.S. nuclear energy in decades, thorium should get its place at the table, says Thorium One’s Bryan.

Aside from lower costs, thorium-powered reactors don't generate anything that can be used for weapons, as is the case with uranium isotopes, meaning that a thorium reactor can only serve to generate electricity.

In addition, thorium, unlike other forms of nuclear energy, does not produce climate-effecting greenhouse gases.

The Thorium Energy Alliance’s Kutsch adds that just pulling uranium and thorium from coal currently mined in the U.S.—and disposing of the combustible portion of the coal—would provide more energy with none of the carbon emissions and other pollution created by firing coal.

As for waste storage concerns, thorium-derived waste has a radiotoxicity period of less than 200 years, compared to the million-year-plus period estimated for uranium fuels, making it easier to handle, says Bryan.

No matter what national policies are set around future nuclear power production, uranium-powered plants are about to get squeezed.

Both Thorium One and Thor Energy say stocks of uranium fuels are stable through 2016, but after that is a question mark.

The $50 billion worldwide nuclear industry is expected to double by then, says Bryan.

“There simply isn’t enough uranium,” he adds.

The U.S. produces less than 4 million pounds of uranium per year, while its 104 nuclear reactors consume 55 to 60 million pounds a year, importing the rest from Australia and Canada.

Bryan says the next decade of domestic uranium production is “sold out”, as is the production of 60 to 70 percent of the top-10 largest uranium mines in the world, to established nuclear energy programs in countries like France and Japan and upstarts like China and India.

In November, uranium prices spiked from their $40 to 45 pound range after the Chinese government said it would build over 100,000 megawatts of nuclear power—roughly equal to the capacity of all U.S. nuclear power plants running today—by 2020.

Thorium, however, is three- to four-times more abundant than uranium, and typically found in surface deposits that are easier and cheaper to mine.

“There’s enough (easily available) thorium to power the entire globe for thousands and thousands of years,” says Bryan.

Another plus is that it is possible to repower existing power plants with thorium reactors—which some expect China to do down the road with its new coal and nuclear ones.

Kutsch agrees that thorium technology may not be entirely groundbreaking, but he says it’s still a big leap forward compared to the decades-old technology in America’s current nuclear fleet.

“We could easily do that here in the U.S.,” says Kutch. “This is what fusion wanted to be."