Archive for December, 2009
Copenhagen’s Spring – Scientists Ask For Higher CO2 Cuts
Copenhagen’s Spring – Scientists Ask For Higher CO2 Cuts
The International Scientific Congress on Climate Change was held in Copenhagen between 10th to 12th March and organised by the International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU): the conclusions will be published into a full synthesis report next June. Almost 1,600 scientific contributions of researchers from over 70 countries have been received, and more than 2,500 delegates attended the event.
Connie Hedegaard, Minister of Climate & Energy of Denmark said that we have “to avoid the unmanageable and manage the unavoidable” and she pointed to their example: this European country has become a net energy exporter in 30 years, creating a green growth as a stable solution of the 70s oil crisis. The messages of the congress are various. The risk that current trends of the climatic system will accelerate has a more defined and significant meaning: more probable abrupt and irreversible shifts, and we are already above the worst scenarios published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001. Thus the big problem is trying to at least slow down these trends if not reverse them. The experts tell us that fast regional and global mitigation strategies are needed and that the more we wait the more expensive and ambitious actions will have to be taken in the future. The fact that scientists have come to the point of saying that “Inaction is Inexcusable” means also that people who studied relentlessly for decades are frustrated by the inaction of governments, businesses and people: it is understandable given that their work has not been considered and used enough, if not at all, up to now. They are speaking louder and clearer now. The different roles of politicians and scientists have to be combined. It is time for leaders to rely firmly on science as a basis for tough and unavoidable decisions. A “societal transformation” is being asked for by a wide group of the most intelligent people on the planet including diffusion of sustainable behaviours, innovative leadership, removal of subsidies and reduction of “vested interests”. These are all very explicit messages to politicians and public alike: there is a lot of work to do between now and next December’s COP15.
In the final debate the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, summarised the six messages given by scientists as 6 keywords: Urgency (of the climate change challenge), Direction (long term target to be defined), Action (short term targets to be set), Fairness (to the poorest and most vulnerable), Opportunity (to originate large benefits), Governance (creation of a new global multilateral era). He stated firmly that “Business As Usual is dead” and asked his colleagues to follow Obama’s call for a Green New Deal, already asked for by public opinion and by many political parties in the world.
After the final debate with the panel of scientists an impatient Rasmussen asked for clear words on the CO2 emission target to be set in the new treaty. Prof. Daniel Kammen, Obama’s Senior Policy Advisor, stated that an entire new industrial revolution is needed to cut 1990’s CO2 emissions by 80% in 2050 and Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf agreed on this point. The feeling was that the other panelists didn’t mind… At this point the Prime Minister concluded that the ambition for COP15 can be this -80% long-term objective following the precautionary principle to avoid worse impacts (than the ones presented in 2007 IPCC report) already hypothesized by new works. Overall a more direct communication between scientists and policy makers took place in this huge meeting: now it’s time for delegations to study and prepare the ground for brave steps forward to be made by the international community in Copenhagen’s crucial Conference of the Parties #15. Will we be able to navigate better our “ship” in the solar system during the over 200 rotations it will make before then?
Written by Luca Marazzi on behalf of Responding to Climate Change.
For further information on Climate Change please visit the Responding to Climate Change website –
http://www.rtcc.org
*Next event: Copenhagen, 24-26 May 2009. World Business Summit on Climate Change
Homemade Energy Generator: Is Solar Or Wind Power A Better Option … Homemade energy generation systems are becoming alternative sources of electricity in residential homes in most parts of the world. This new innovation may be a. Biggest solar power breakthroughs of 2009 | Energy and Fuel England’s QuantaSol Ltd. announced in June that it had developed what is likely the most efficient single-junction solar cell ever manufactured. The device was independently tested by Fraunhofer ISE as achieving 28.3-per cent efficiency … Solar Companies Draw Rock Climbers, Too – Green Inc. Blog … Installing solar panels on pitched roofs often requires rope skills, which is a big reason why some solar companies — like wind turbine repair companies — are hiring climbers. Feinstein Expands 30% Solar Tax Credit to Include Public Swimming … Feinstein Expands 30% Solar Tax Credit to Include Public Swimming Pools When the 30% tax credits as cash grants were instituted with the American Recovery. Effects of solar cycle #24 upon subsequent weather patterns – Bad … Given that we are not certain that solar cycle #24 is a “Maunder-type” minimum–is anyone aware of how many different government agencies.Technology Environment News 12-14-07 of Dekalb Academy
An Environmental Tax to Reveal a Product’s True Cost?
An Environmental Tax to Reveal a Product’s True Cost?
Sometimes, simple acts such as going to the grocery store can turn into a moral dilemma. Is it better to choose the piece of organic fruit produced on the other side of the country or the non-organic version grown locally, 50 miles away? Are the benefits of chemical-free shampoo worth an extra 5 bucks a bottle? Will I really be able to enjoy a cheap chocolate bar knowing that the growers of the cocoa beans were likely not fairly compensated?
As much as I’d like to say that I always buy the product that is environmentally safe and sustainably produced, in reality, that’s not always the case. First, the sheer amount of information required to be able to distinguish between products is staggering. You need facts regarding environmental impact, transportation costs, and fair trade practices, to name just a few. And there are plenty of misinformation and greenwashing campaigns out there to steer you in the wrong direction.
Second, of course, there are times when the high cost of an ethically made product turns me off from buying it. Even consumers with the best of intentions have their breaking points.
The thing is, companies who go out of their way to implement sustainable practices endure a greater cost of production. Sure, they can sometimes capitalize on this by marketing to conscientious consumers who are willing to pay a bit more, but the fact remains that in today’s system, environmentally minded production is punished.
On the other hand, companies who move their factories (and jobs) to developing countries with lax environmental standards and cheap labor are able to make products at a fraction of the cost and undercut their competitors (while shipping materials and finished goods all around the world and adding to our greenhouse gas problems).
The way it’s set up, high environmental standards in one country drive companies to relocate in places where it’s permissible to pollute in order to compete in the marketplace. Chaco, the Colorado-based athletic sandal company, is a prime example of even a well-intentioned company being forced to follow suit to maintain competitive pricing on their products. In fact, 95% of all footwear in the world is produced in China, whose poor environmental regulation and sometimes dangerous environmental problems are well known.
With current talk about cap and trade emissions programs, this phenomenon may only get worse.
So how do we even the playing field and reward companies for good business practices?
When I think about this problem, I keep coming back to an idea I encountered in a casual conversation with a stranger while traveling. I can’t remember his face or his name, but his idea has stuck with me and festered in my mind for the better part of a year. His take was that putting the financial burden of environmental responsibility on the companies just doesn’t make sense for the reasons I’ve given above. In a global marketplace, it renders companies less competitive than those that operate free of environmental and labor regulations.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to put an “environmental impact” or “ecological footprint” tax on the product itself?
Ugh, a tax?
Initially, I didn’t warm to the idea either. But think about it: adding a tax proportionate to a product’s ecological and social footprint eliminates the cost advantage of irresponsible production. All those environmental costs that are currently not included in our economic system would be factored in and would increase the price of unsustainably made products.
This, in turn, would make moral dilemmas at the grocery store much easier. Is it more sustainable to buy distant, organic produce or local, non-organic produce? The tax-adjusted pricing should inform my decision. Can I afford the chemical-free shampoo? Yes, because the price of its chemical-laden competitors would be raised through the environmental impact tax and eliminate the cost advantage of choosing that product.
The money raised from the tax could fund its implementation and other sustainable programs such as public transportation (high speed rail, anyone?) and alternative energy. Perhaps it could even make a dent in our gaping budget deficit.
Won’t this cost me money?
You may be thinking, “Sure, that’s a good idea in concept, but that will raise my bills – grocery, clothes, everything.” Well, yes, that’s true. But maybe if we see the true cost of the products we casually consume, we can make a more informed decision about what is really necessary to our lives.
Additionally, programs such as this often have the greatest impact on the poor. But this could be compensated for by using some of the tax revenue for need-based assistance programs.
Regardless, running an economic system on the assumption of infinite resources is fundamentally flawed. Currently, environmental impacts such as air pollution, water pollution, and deforestation are not factored into the cost of a product: they are considered “externalities.”
These costs need to be included in the system in a way that does not punish those who engage in sustainable business practices. By taxing a product’s environmental impact, it levels the playing field for the consumer.
Disclaimer
Of course, I am not an economist or policy guru. I don’t know how to implement such a tax or if it would even be possible (though compared to creating a carbon trading market, perhaps it’s not that difficult). This is only the musing of a concerned, intelligent citizen trying to brainstorm ways to make our economic system fit within the bounds of our ecological constraints.
What do you think? Would such a tax have a beneficial effect on our production system? Join the conversation over at our website!
Jill Mueller is a conservation biologist, avid cyclist, and freelance writer. She has combined forces with a good friend and dietitian to start The Barefoot Badger, a blog promoting healthy, sustainable living. Check us out!
The IDF Adopts Solar Energy Field Rechargers in Army Practices … DARPA in America looks to use solar power on the battlefield. In a small capacity, Israel is now too. While in no way does Green Prophet support fighting. Solar Coasters » Coolest Gadgets solar-coaster If you happen to host plenty of parties over a year, then chances are most of them would be free flowing with booze to keep some guests happy. After all, what’s a party without any tongue-loosening alcohol? … World Bank to Invest in North African Solar The World Bank will invest $5.5 billion for North African solar power projects. They have announced that initially put in $750 million dollars from the. AUO supplies PV modules for solar-power plant in Germany AU Optronics (AUO) has disclosed that a 3MWp solar-power plant in a small town in Germany using its PV modules started running on December 22, supplying electricity for 800 households. Solar Landscape Lighting | Alternative Energy HQ Garden decorators find solar landscaping lights to be best for many reasons. One major advantage for you will be the time, money and energy saved by not digging pathways in your gardens to setup wires for your garden lights. …Green Opportunities News Story, Employment News
Water Efficiency – The Resource Matrix Part 2 of 4 – Water’s Role in Global Warming
Water Efficiency – The Resource Matrix Part 2 of 4 – Water’s Role in Global Warming
Last week, we introduced you to the Resource Matrix, which is everywhere, it is all around us. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
We showed you how economics leads to people maximizing their benefits in “win-lose” propositions: you want diamonds and gold for nothing and they want to give you useless junk for a king’s ransom. And how we’ve been hypnotized in believing what they want is also what we want.
But the scales have been falling from our eyes, we’re beginning to see the truth, and the power has been shifting away from the “I want your goodies for nothing” crowd:
- Do-gooders have increased our awareness and worked to change deals from “win-lose” to “win-win”
- There is no “free lunch:” finite energy resources will run out; actions have consequences, and the consequences of our actions are already visible, rather scary, and quite irreversible; and that the “I want your goodies for nothing” crowd hasn’t been telling the truth
We now realize we’re all in this together: we have greater awareness of our actions and the desire to change, and have ways to change.
Hallelujah and Praise the Collective!
Today, we introduce the resource called water, its parallels with fossil fuels, and its role in global warming.
None of this is to dismiss or diminish the contribution of fossil fuels in global warming. Hey, just like the Special Olympics, if you participate, you get a medal. We just think that gold-medal winner Fossil Fuels has stolen the spotlight, letting silver-medalist Water Use keep us hypnotized in believing that water is a free lunch, and that nature will clear up polluted waters while getting away with breaking the rules.
Water, water, everywhere,
not a drop to drink.
According to our friends at How Stuff Works, who I wrote about sarcastically for their oxymoronic clean coal article in discussing how true public relations stuff really works, gives us this data:
- 98% of the planet’s water is in the oceans. It’s salt water – we can’t drink it or irrigate our crops with it.
- 2% is usable. Of that 2%:
- 80% is locked up in polar ice caps and glaciers
- 18% is underground in aquifers and wells
- 1.8% is in lakes and rivers
- 0.2% is elsewhere: either floating in the air as clouds and water vapor, locked up in plants and animals (and your body), and in foods and beverages.
Okay, so 20% of the usable water (only 0.4% of all water on Earth) is accessible, right?
Well . . . no. Many of the aquifers, wells, lakes, and rivers have been sucked dry like a once-juicy fly carcass in a spider’s web. (The 18% and 1.8% you see above is like the money in the Social Security Fund: there actually is nothing there.)
And many of those water sources that do still have a drop to drink are worse than the ocean’s salt water. Drink salt water and you’ll need to yawn into a bucket. Drink this water and you’ll kick the bucket.
And I know you aren’t asking this burning question:
“So . . . global warming to release fresh water from ice caps and glaciers is a good thing, no?”
Percentage this, percentage that.
Talk my language, will you?
I know I’m pulling the disgusting old government trick: drowning you in an ocean of water statistics.
So let’s make it plain and simple:
You bring in $10,000 a month. You’re also living high on the hog and doing your personal best to outshine every bling-bling Hip Hopster Musical Artist in materially conspicuous consumption:
- $9800 goes to the McMansion mortgage and gold-plated Rolls Royce lease
- $160.00 goes to investments in clothing and accessories
- $0.40 has been lost in the sofa cushions
- $39.60 a month is for everything else: food, phone and electric bills, income taxes, and all the other non-essentials: Don’t spend it all in one place!
Aquifers and wells and lakes and rivers:
Dry or polluted, oh my!
Fred Pearce, author of When the Rivers Run Dry, helps us quickly understand it:
We can all save water in the home. But as laudable as it is to take a shower rather than a bath and turn off the faucet while brushing our teeth, we shouldn’t get hold of the idea that regular domestic water use is what is really emptying the world’s rivers. Manufacturing goods … consumes a certain amount, but that’s not the real story either. It is only when we add in the water needed to grow what we eat and drink that the numbers really begin to soar. (emphasis mine.) (Fred Pearce, When the Rivers Run Dry, Boston: Beacon Press, 2006. p 3)
Here are a few numbers he gives:
- to grow a pound of rice: 250 to 650 gallons of water
- to grow a pound of wheat: 130 gallons
- to produce a quart of milk: 500 to 1000 gallons
- to produce a pound of cheese: 650 gallons
- to produce a 1/4 pound of burger: 3000 gallons
He kindly puts water use into perspective in annual terms:
- 1 ton (265 gallons) for drinking
- 50 to 100 tons (13,250 to 26,500 gallons) around the house
- 1500 to 2000 tons (397,500 to 530,000 gallons) for food and clothing
—————————————–
sidebar:
How Many Gallons to Produce One Pound of Beef?
Lies, damned lies, and statistics
US Beef industry’s Cattlemen’s Association: 441 gallons
Fred Pearce: 12,000 gallons
Water Footprint Network: 1854 gallons (calculations: 15500 litres of water per kg; 4079 gallons per kg; 1854 gallons per pound)
In an industrial beef production system, it takes an average three years before the animal is slaughtered to produce about 200 kg of boneless beef.
The animal consumes nearly 1300 kg of grains (wheat, oats, barley, corn, dry peas, soybean meal and other small grains), 7200 kg of roughages (pasture, dry hay, silage and other roughages), 24 cubic meter of water for drinking and 7 cubic meter of water for servicing.
This means that to produce one kilogram of boneless beef, we use about 6.5 kg of grain, 36 kg of roughages, and 155 litres of water (only for drinking and servicing).
Producing the volume of feed requires about 15300 litres of water on average.
—————————————–
Where does all that water come from?
From virtually everywhere
If it comes from imported goods (Thai rice or Egyptian cotton), the water comes from those countries.
When the water is collected from rivers or pumped from underground, as it is in much of the world, it’s:
- increasingly expensive
- increasingly likely to deprive someone of water (nothing to drink)
- increasingly likely to empty rivers and underground water reserves
And when the rivers are running low, as they are more frequently, there is less water to grow anything at all.
The water used in growing and producing goods around the world is known as “virtual water” and the trade of these goods is known as “virtual water transfers.”
And who’s the biggest water exporting Mouseketeer of them all? The United States.
When you drink coffee from Central America, you are influencing the hydrology of the region, virtually taking a share of the Costa Rican rains. The same is true within a national and regional boundaries. The Colorado River is drained so Californians can eat their Big Macs and have friends over for a Sunday afternoon barbecue.
In the same way that your use of fossil fuel is measured as a “carbon footprint,” your water use, actual and through virtual water transfer, is measured as a “water footprint.”
How big is my water footprint?
I’ll show you mine if you show me yours
Arjen Y. Hoekstra, professor at the University of Twente, the Netherlands, introduced the water-footprint concept in 2002. It “shows water use related to consumption within a nation, while the traditional indicator shows water use in relation to production within a nation.” (Hoekstra and Chapagain, Globalization of Water, Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2008, p. 3)
With Hoekstra and Chapagain’s water footprint calculator (waterfootprint.org), you select your country, input food, domestic water use, and industrial goods consumption, press a button, and you get your:
- total water footprint for the year
- bar charts for the three components
- bar charts for individual food categories
For example, you’re in the US, eat only 1 pound of cereal a week (.4545 kg) and have a low-fat, low-sugar diet, use a low-flow showerhead, use a no-flush eco-toilet, and never run the tap while brushing your teeth. Two extremes:
- You’re the hippiest of the hip: making $10,000 a year: Your water footprint: 245 cubic meters (65,170 gallons)
- You’re the hippiest of the Yuppies: making $120,000: Your water footprint: 2979 cubic meters (792,414 gallons). Difference due to your income’s effect on industrial production.
Three notes on the calculations, because Professor Hoekstra is European and lives in the social welfare country that started birthing hippies in Amsterdam decades before they showed up in the US at Woodstock:
- You input kilograms for food:
- 1 kilogram = 2.2 pounds = 35.2 ounces
- 1 ounce = 0.028 kilograms. 1 pound = 0.454545 kilograms
- Your water footprint is in cubic meters per year:
- 1 cubic meter = 35.3 cubic feet = 266 gallons
- The higher your income, the greater your water footprint, even if you don’t personally consume anything: you’re a capitalist pig supporting the Establishment Regime, I guess
So how is Cinnamon’s capitalist water footprint? Answer: 650 cubic meters (172,900 gallons)
I showed you mine. Now you show me yours:
Get the naked truth: Calculate your waterfootprint now:
Water’s running out:
I get the fossil fuel analogy so far.
And what about climate change?
We return to Fred Pearce’s book to find an example, of which he has oceans:
China’s Yellow River: The fifth longest in the world, it begins high in the mountains of eastern Tibet and journeys more than 3000 miles. Almost half a billion people depend on it for drinking and crop irrigation, and it’s made China the world’s largest wheat producer and second largest corn producer. Yet more than half of the lakes it feeds have disappeared over the last 20 years, and a third of pastures have turned to desert. This desertification generates huge dust storms that choke lungs in Beijing, close schools in Koreas, dust cars in Japan, and rain dust on mountains across the Pacific and Western Canada.
State irrigation projects along the Yellow River soak up the majority of its water – the total official allocations are greater than the actual flow.
The resulting drought could be an early warning sign of global warming.
Much of the declines in moisture reaching rivers is in line with prediction of climate researchers. So how does this global warming happen?
Higher air temperatures from desertification increase evaporation from oceans and intensify the water cycle. This increases atmospheric water vapor – 8 to 10% more than today. This increases global rainfall, but the rain is being redistributed: middle latitudes (read: the US) are becoming drier. Higher temperatures increase evaporation on land, meaning soil dries out faster, meaning less rainfall is reaching rivers.
The higher temperatures melt glaciers and snowpacks. At first, this leads to unpredecented floods. After the glaciers disappear, meltwaters that feed rivers disappear. The combined decreasing rainfall and increasing evaporation will lower moisture by 40% in the southern and western states.
The Sierra Nevada snowpack could diminish by 70 to 80 percent over the next 50 years. And some of the world’s most productive agricultural regions could dry up.
Global climate is becoming more extreme: the dry areas become drier, and the wet areas become wetter. And more areas are becoming dry deserts. Loss of habitat and agricultural lands. It’s a vicious cycle.
So what can you do?
Navigating through the Resource Matrix
As Fred Pearce points out, your drinking and bathing account for 0.05% of your total water consumption. Your food and clothing weigh in at 95.00%, although I find his 12,000 gallons needed to produce a pound of burger rather wild.
As Professor Arjen Y. Joekstra shows with his Water Footprint Calculator, your consumption of meats accounts for a lot, as does your guilt by association of being in an industrialized country.
The obvious solution: eat fewer e-coli burgers from your neighborhood Salt and Fat Slop Bucket restaurant.
The wiser solution: like your choices in energy use, become more aware of the resources needed to produce anything and the consequences. Such as luxurious cotton grown in the Egyptian desert.
Next article in the water efficiency series:
How an illiterate, lice-infested, foul-mouthed
peasant on some other side of the globe affects you
We continue going with the flow of water, when we show the parallel between the current hot Oil Wars and in the future cold Water Wars.
And all of this is for one purpose:
To help you see the Resource Matrix, everywhere, all around you.
Thanks for letting us keep you updated . . .
To your green, brighter future,
Cinnamon Alvarez,
A19
And now I would like to offer you free access to powerful info on energy efficiency that’s easy to read and cuts through all this “green” information clutter — so you can literally start making positive changes today.
You can access it now by going to: http://www.a19.com/pub/articles/
From Cinnamon Alvarez: Founder, A19 — woman-owned green manufacturer of hand-made ceramic lighting fixtures
England Tech news
Electronics Recycling
Electronics Recycling
Society’s technological advancements have grown significantly over the years. Electronics devices such as telephones, cell phones, radios, CD and DVD players, televisions, and computers are products that are used in every household. These items are just a few of the many electronic devices that can cause serious environmental damage due to their toxic components. Electronics that are in need of disposal are referred to as e-waste, or electronic waste. Because of the advancement of electronic products, there has been a growing concern about the hazards of electronic waste. Some of these concerns include: improper disposal of toxic materials, health and safety concerns for people disposing of these items, as well as dangers to the soil and water supply. For instance, electronics are made using a considerable amount of toxic substances such as lead, cadmium, aluminum, zinc, copper, and plastics which can all leak poisonous material in the ground and water. These environmental concerns have resulted in the establishment of electronic recycling facilities and industries who take old electronics such as computers for the purpose of recycling and safe disposal.
Electronics containing materials such as metals, plastic, are valuable to the recycling companies. Disposing of electronics through a recycling company will result in fewer electronic devices going into landfills and lower carbon emissions.
Recovering Raw Materials: Recycling electronics involves recovering raw materials from the electronic equipment. Materials such as steel, copper, wires, aluminum, brass, plastics, glass,etc., are extracted and sold to smelters so they can create raw materials. Depending on the type of metal being extracted, they can be processed and used in products required by such businesses as the steel, construction and cement industry. Plastics and wood can be used as fuel to provide heat to industrial furnaces which converts to steam. Metals such as copper are sold to metal refineries.
Plastics: Plastics from such items as computers, computer mice, and keyboards, are sent through shredding processes and machine sorted. They are then sent to other recyclers for further processing.
Larger Electronics: Items such as televisions and computer monitors are dismantled by hand. The leaded glass cathode ray tubes are removed and disposed of safely. Plastics, copper, and circuit boards are removed, separated, and processed.
Hazardous Items: Toxic items are removed from electronic devices and disposed of safely. Toxic substance can include leaded glass, rechargeable batteries, non-rechargeable batteries (i.e.alkaline, lead acid, cell batteries) mercury in lamps and switches, parts containing polychlorinated biphenyls, as well as ink and toner cartridges. The remaining non toxic materials are processed and the recyclable materials are recovered. The materials are shredded and separated according to type. For instance, they can be divided into such materials as steel, copper, aluminum, and plastic.
Refurbished Electronics: There are now many companies that acquire used computers, repair and update them, and resell them at a much lower price. This is a great way to keep electronics out of landfills and make technology more affordable.
Donate Your Computer: If you are getting rid of your old computer because of a recent upgrade, consider donating it to charity. Many schools and non profit organisations are in need of computers. There are companies and businesses that will take your computer, refurbish it, and donate it to a needy cause. Make sure your computer is wiped clean of all information before donating it. Donating your computer helps the community and the environment.
We are fast becoming a technology dependent society. When it comes to protecting and conserving our environment, we have to adapt and change our technological practices to ensure a sustainable future. Recycling electronics is a great way help the planet.
Know that repairing a computer or laptop repair Toronto is not cheap, but it can be cheaper than having to replace the computer. If you run into these situations, you will need to hire a onsite computer repair service Toronto.
science-news,callin,opinion of Invasion Earth
Water Efficiency – Water Used in Generating US Electricity
Water Efficiency – Water Used in Generating US Electricity
In my four-article series on water use (The Resource Matrix), I took you on a journey to reveal the layers of The Resource Matrix in order to help you understand how water will be a highly contested commodity tomorrow, possibly as much as oil is fought over today.
You learned about your water footprint and a website where you can calculate it, virtual water and virtual water transfers, whereby choices here affect water availability elsewhere, to the point of some people not having enough water to drink in order to produce inexpensive dyed cotton, along with insane choices such as growing crops in the desert.
You learned that on average it takes 1854 to 3000 gallons to produce one pound of beef.
Yep, it’s it’s been a great journey through the sidetrip city of the Resource Matrix.
Today, we’ve found the on-ramp to the Green Lighting Interstate and are driving to take a look at water use in generating electricity.
For a simple reason. It takes a lot of water to produce electricity.
How much? 5% of all US water? 10%? Can’t be as high as 25%?
Electricity and water?
I thought the issue was fossil fuels and greenhouse gases
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated water use in the United States in 2000.
Their grand total: 408 billion gallons per day withdrawn for all uses.
The number 1 spot, weighing in at 48%, was thermoelectric power.
Irrigation earned the runner-up prize at 34%.
The 195 billion gallons need to come from somewhere, and actions have consequences. Environmental ones, as in 40 million fish in the Great Lakes killed each year due to being trapped against water intake devices. That’s a lot of Friday night fish dinners.
How much water is used in generating electricity?
Large fossil fuel and nuclear plants require incredible quantities of water for cooling and ongoing maintenance.
Water for thermoelectric power is used in generating electricity with steam-driven turbine generators. It uses 48% of all water in the US.
According to the Pace Energy and Climate Center, the amount of water used for power plant cooling varies by each specific power plant’s electricity generating technology and size. Nuclear reactors require the most water for cooling, and baseload fossil fuel power plants come in second.
The Salem Nuclear Generating Station alone takes 3 billion gallons a day from the Delaware Bay, according to the Pace Energy and Climate Center.
Nationally:
- Steam electric generating plants across the nation draw in more than 200 billion gallons per day.
- Nuclear and fossil fuel power plants drink over 185 billion gallons of water per day.
- Geothermal power plants add another 2 billion or so gallons a day.
- Most renewable energy technologies require little or no water for cooling.
These numbers are starting to sound like the same ones the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve Bank use.
Imagine watching your favorite science program where astronomers explain that the universe is 78 billion light-years wide (78 billion units of 5,878,630,000,000 miles). There is absolutely nothing in our experience to help us wrap our mind around it.
How much is 3 billion gallons per day?
The Delaware Bay feeds Salem Nuclear Generating Station 3 billion gallons a day.
Imagine this rectangle: a football field with end zones (360 feet long x 160 feet wide). Then add to it walls on each side of the rectangle to create a container to hold the 3 billion gallons you pour into it.
How high do you need to make those walls to contain 3 billion gallons? 6915 feet high. Or 1.3 miles.
Maybe 6915 feet high is still hard to imagine. So how deep do you cover the field in order to feed the Salem plant every minute? Answer: 5 feet deep. Every minute.
48% of all water use: We’re Number One!
How much is 195 billion gallons per day?
Using the USGS figure for 2000, thermoelectric power nationwide used 195 billion gallons a day, or 48% of all water used in the US. My guess is the water use has grown since then.
How high are the walls on our football field now? 449,475 feet or 85 miles high. We’re back to US Treasury and astronomy numbers again.
So, let’s get a higher-level view to help us.
Lake Erie holds 116 cubic miles of water.
Nationally, thermoelectric power uses 195 billion gallons a day – or 64.2 cubic miles a year.
We drain Lake Erie every 22 months.
But the water used is returned to its source.
So what’s the issue about water use?
Power generation returns 98% of the water back to its source (bay, lake, river, ocean).
It’s the environmental consequences.
The Pace Energy and Climate Center explains it neatly:
Withdrawal of large volumes of surface water for either power plant cooling or hydropower generation can kill fish, larvae and other organisms trapped against intake structures (impinged), or swept up (entrained) in the flow through the different sections of a power plant.
Examples include:
- The Salem Nuclear Generating Station is responsible for an annual 11 percent reduction in weakfish and 31 percent reduction in bay anchovy.
- At the Indian Point 2 and 3 reactors on the Hudson River, the number of fish impinged totaled over 1.5 million fish in 1987.
- The 90 power plants using once-through-cooling on the Great Lakes kill in excess of 40 million fish per year due to impingement. (Once-through cooling needs a continual flow of new water, and uses 30 to 50 times that of a closed cycle system. Closed cycles cool down water from steam then reuse it.)
The diversion of water out of the river removes water for healthy in-stream ecosystems:
- Stretches below dams are often completely de-watered.
- Fluctuations in water flow from peaking operations create a “tidal effect,” disrupting the downstream riparian community that supports its unique ecosystem.
- A dam’s impoundment slows water flows, which hinders natural downstream migration of many fish species.
- By slowing river flows, dams also allow silt to collect on river and reservoir bottoms and bury fish spawning habitat. Silt trapped above dams accumulates heavy metals and other pollutants. Disrupting the natural flow of sediments in rivers also leads to erosion of riverbeds downstream of the dam and increases risks of floods.
- The impoundment of water by hydropower facilities fundamentally reshapes the physical habitat from a riverine to an artificial pond community.
- This often eliminates native populations of fish and other wildlife.
- Dams also impede the upstream and downstream movement of fish and other wildlife, and prevent the flow of plants and nutrients. This impact is most significant on migratory fish, which are born in the river and must migrate downstream early in life to the ocean and then migrate upstream again to lay their eggs (or “spawn”).
- As mentioned above, withdrawal of water into turbines can also impinge or entrain significant numbers of fish.
The cleanest kilowatt is the one never used:
Back to those compact fluorescent lamps and LEDs
PowerScorecard.org explains the solution:
By re-directing electricity dollars to support environmentally benign energy resources, consumers are empowered, in states that offer supply choice, to influence the existing generating resources that are deployed to meet demand.
They can also support the construction of new and cleaner electricity resources that will be built to meet overall growth in demand in the future. By supporting these power options, consumers can minimize many water use and consumption impacts. Still, directing your dollars to cleaner power products in no way helps remediate damages that already have occurred. Consumers can stop the construction of new hydropower facilities or alter conditions of siting and operation, but they cannot undo previous environmental degradation that occurred at existing hydropower facilities.
In short, reduce your use of electricity.
More Info:
We used several sources for this article, including the PowerScorecard.org website, which is produced by the Pace Energy and Climate Center, which is part of the Pace University School of Law’s Center for Environmental Legal Studies, Pace University, White Plains, New York.
On PowerScorecard, you can get:
- Ratings of Electric Power Choices for some service areas.
- More info on electricity and the environment:
- Technologies
- Climate change
- Acid rain
- Ozone depletion
- Water use (our article today)
- Water quality
- Land: on-site and off-site impacts
Thanks for letting us keep you updated . . .
To your green, brighter future,
Cinnamon Alvarez,
A19
And now I would like to offer you free access to powerful info on energy efficiency that’s easy to read and cuts through all this “green” information clutter — so you can literally start making positive changes today.
You can access it now by going to: http://www.a19.com/pub/articles/
From Cinnamon Alvarez: Founder, A19 — woman-owned green manufacturer of hand-made ceramic lighting fixtures
Make: Online : New in the Maker Shed: Solar Grasshopper Kit The snap-together solar powered grasshopper kit teaches how solar energy can be used to generate electricity. It’s an easy to assemble electronics kit that’s great for first-time experimenters with little or no experience. Glitter-sized solar photovoltaics could revolutionize solar enery … Solar concentrators â?? low-cost, prefabricated, optically efficient microlens arrays â?? can be placed directly over each glitter-sized cell to increase the number of photons arriving to be converted via the photovoltaic effect into … SolarReserve: Solar & Salt in the Nevada Desert The obvious problem with solar power is that the sun doesn’t shine at night, but quite a few solar makers … World's Largest Solar-Power Hotel Opens in China | Oddity Central … Using thousands of permanent solar panels to harvest energy, the Solar Valley Micro-E Hotel is the largest solar-power hotel on Earth. Built by Himin Group, For Brewery, Solar Water Heater Means Twice as Much Beer for Same … Central Waters Brewery in Amherst, Wisc., has been able to double its beer production without spending any more on natural gas after installing a solar water heater, reports Central Wisconsin Hub.AT&T Tech ChannelFor Green Computing
Mobile Car Wash Rules City of Oxnard CA Slated
Mobile Car Wash Rules City of Oxnard CA Slated
The City of Oxnard, California is concerned with the quality of its storm water and rightfully so, as it has made great strides over the years. Oxnard CA is also home to the gateway to the channel islands with some incredible beaches and nice resort style living, and all that storm water leads to the ocean and those beautiful beaches. Thus, the city has chosen to start cracking down on mobile car washes.
This should not come as any surprise to anyone, as the city had previously implemented many programs to help clean the storm water runoff. They had developed a nearly bullet proof NPDES plan to insure clean water. The beaches never looked so good and this recent ruling to finish that job nearly a decade and a half later has come all the way down to washing of cars.
Our company had dealt with this issue in the late 80s and early 90s and helped write all the NPDES BMPs for several counties near there. The devices used are fairly easy to buy, and it really doesn’t take much, further it is my contention that all mobile car washes ought to follow the rules to protect the environment and there ought to be no excuses on that.
Indeed, over the years, we’ve worked with many cities on this, in fact, one thing we did was join the committees to help write the original BMPs for surface cleaners in Ventura County, CA where the City of Oxnard is located. A mobile car wash operator should not only follow the rules but be part of the solution. Think on that.
Lance Winslow – Lance Winslow’s Bio. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; http://www.WorldThinkTank.net/.
Solar DIY â?? How to Setup Your DIY Solar Panels! With so many things happening to our world right now including global warming (it’s REAL now…) and our current consumption of earth’s limited resources, Solar Module Maker Plans a Public Offering – Green Inc. Blog … The move by Solyndra, founded by Silicon Valley veterans, would be the biggest solar-related offering in years. More Solar Cycle 24 Firsts – QRZ Forums We now officially have solar cycle 24 sunspot group #11036, located near S29W19 with a beta magnetic signature. We also have solar cycle 24 sunspot group #11037, located near N18E54 with a beta magnetic signature. … Hot Electrons Could Increase the Solar Cell's Power Output | Solar … Researchers at Boston College have developed new solar cells that successfully use hot electrons to increase the cells’ power output. According to the scientists, the concept could lead to solar cells that break conventional efficiency … Oregon Scientific RMR802 Solar-Powered RC Clock with Outdoor … Oregon Scientific releases in the UK the RMR802 solar-powered RC Clock with outdoor temperature. Obiously, the device can show you both indoor and outdoor.News for Green Tech Stock
Green Technology Revs
So How You Do’ing? In the spirit of recycling, I thought I would use those famous words from Friends character Joey. I have shared with you in other articles ideas that my family are using to cut our carbon footprint on this precious Earth that we call home. Reducing is always a challenge, because it goes in the face of our societal values of having more and doing more, but it is the highest form of recycling. Re-using is something that has been natural for me through out my life. It may be challenging at times to creatively transform old household items into new uses, but this has become one of the staples of our family’s efforts to be more environmentally friendly…and save money. Recycling has become the catch phrase for the 3 R’s, but is strictly speaking altering one thing into another. It is important that we recycle as much as we possibly can, because making consumables from recycled goods is always cheaper and better for the environment than making them from raw materials. But we should recognise too that recycling should only be used after we have reduced and re-used. For our children and their futures, we must use all the arsenal of tools embodied in the 3 R’s: reducing wherever we can, re-using everything that we possibly can, and recycling every item that our councils and recycling centres will accept. Today I am wanted to look at those things that my family could do better: 1) Reducing excess packaging. I think this might be the most challenging to tackle; partly because a great deal of it is beyond our control. We are, I admit, large consumers of electronics (blame techie husband). Have you ever noticed how much packaging goes into one tiny piece of plastic? A memory stick that is one inch by two will most often come in a plastic (non-recyclable) package with a large cardboard inset and an information packet. I recognise that this is an anti-theft device, but aren’t there other alternatives? What about putting such items behind the counter? The other side of that is that the packaging contributes to the cost of that piece of plastic and metal. Of course, this is an issue that will require a concreted effort from consumer and most likely government intervention to address. What I can do for now is to choose to purchase my fruit and vegetables loose. I am also hoping this will cut down on both spending and waste by purchasing only what we need. 2) I am going to remember to use those little switches on the power plugs. As I mentioned, being American we do not have such things. It has been hard for me change a lifetime of habits. But with my husband’s help, I am going to use these magic little buttons more often. 3) We are going to replace all batteries with rechargeable ones. About half of our batteries are rechargeable; mostly the ones in our keyboards and mousse. But over the coming weeks, we will replace all batteries with rechargeable ones…since these are particularly toxic waste in our landfills. 4) I am going to use less water when washing dishes. I have this habit of running the water to rinse dishes as I go. The new plan is to wash everything and sit it on the counter until I am done. Then use the same pan to rinse the dishes in cold water. 5) I am going to have a spring clean out. I may be doing pretty well at re-using but I could help others to do better by donating all the stuff I am not using to Freecycle, the Islington Swap Xchange, or my local Mind shop. This will make my husband very happy as he has been complaining about my daughter’s toys for a while now. So what can you do better? Remember though this is not about being perfect, but the little things that we can realistically do and continue to do. The things that may seem so small that you don’t think they will make a difference: things that if we all did would make a huge difference. I invite you all to share your list with me. Terri O’Neale is the mother of six; ranging in age from 3 to 22. She has been both a working and stay-at-home mother at various times in her life. She was also a single mother for almost five years, before re-marrying the love of her life at the age of forty. Obviously, she has a life-time of training in raising a family on a tight budget. In addition to these real life experiences, she possesses a bachelors degree in health education and a minored in environmental management in her masters programme. Terri feels strongly that this is one of the most challenging times in history for the family, but she also believes that families with the will and resolve to address the pressing issues of saving money, becoming greener, leading healthier lifestyles and spending more time with one another can endure these challenging times and come out victorious in the end. Through Frugal Family articles, blogs, videos and social networking, she helps modern families rediscover some lost art forms such as cooking, sewing, and gardening. The goal is not to go back in time or become fanatical, but to help all families find simple and effective ways that fit into their lifestyle to make moderate changes with huge impacts. For more information, check out her blog http://frugalfam.wordpress.com/.
Green Technology Revs
The 3 R’s – Our Family’s Commitment to Do More
Climate and Biodiversity For Common Good
Climate and Biodiversity For Common Good
Concerns about dangerous climate change and large biodiversity loss are visible throughout the world: unprecedented rates of temperature increases and species extinctions are a reality. In 1999 Dr. Peter Raven, president of the International Botanical Congress, published a paper in which he states that “current extinction rate is now approaching 1,000 times the background rate and may climb to 10,000 times the background rate during the next century, if present trends continue. At this rate, one-third to two-thirds of all species of plants, animals, and other organisms would be lost during the second half of the 21st century, a loss that would easily equal those of past extinctions”. He then outlined seven “Points to Slow the Extinction of Plants”, including financial and capacity building instruments to help developing countries protect 80% of the world’s biodiversity they host. As far as climate change is concerned, the responsibility of developed countries is high in providing the most threatened regions in the world with good instruments to cope with this challenge (or at least examples of them to implement autonomously).
Climate change plays a significant role in this human-induced mass extinction because it is increasing the already large biodiversity losses caused by habitat destruction and fragmentation, water and air pollution, introduction of invasive species. Marine ecosystems will be affected by an increase in sea temperature, but also by ocean acidification, because of the higher concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide (carbonic acid): in fact this reduces the shell formation ability in many organisms. Polar (and mountain) ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to climate change, with effects such as thawing permafrost, decreased snow cover, losses from ice sheets and changes in ocean temperatures. Large impacts on Arctic biodiversity are already evident, pictures of polar bears wandering lost on small icebergs being a scary and sad symbol of the era we live in (even former U.S. President Bush, at the end of his mandate, recalled this image to show his fellow citizens he cared about climate change …)
In this rapidly changing environment it is therefore extremely important that conservation plans include adaption measures for ecosystems accordingly to the predicted regional climate patterns (but models need still to be improved a lot at this scale): dynamic approaches are needed to set good options for future ecosystems and landscapes. It will be necessary to facilitate the movement of species to new geographical locations, as they follow the shifting habitats.
The public concern is growing: in Africa last 28 February young people organized a march from impoverished urban areas to the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro to raise awareness on climate change, together with the Kilimanjaro Initiative and the UN’s global UNite to Combat Climate Change campaign. It seems though that the global attention on climate change doesn’t fully consider implications for biodiversity yet: while the negotiations and speeches on climate issues are very popular (and the Nobel Prize was awarded to the entire IPCC together with Al Gore in 2007) the meetings and decisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity (http://www.cbd.int/) don’t raise comparable interest. Is it because the anthropocentrism is (still) the prevailing philosophy and animals and plants are mainly seen by people as beautiful “supporting actors” on the planet we live on? Right when we are losing control of the global situation it is probably time to reflect on our role of dominant species and acknowledge the fundamental contribution of other organisms to our livelihoods, despite many of us live in the so called Technosphere.
Policies to protect the climate avoiding irreversible effects on the ecosystems need to be strongly interconnected with conservation strategies: preserving natural areas while helping them adapt to the changing climate means hopefully to leave better, or not as compromised, ecosystems to future generations. Climate and biodiversity, though ever changing and evolving, are common goods and they need common policies: if we reduce the human Ecological Footprint both the atmosphere and the biosphere will be better off (and our children and grandchildren living in them).
Written by Luca Marazzi on behalf of Responding to Climate Change.
For further information on Climate Change please visit the Responding to Climate Change website – http://www.rtcc.org
The Ecological Footprint is a measure of human demand on the Earth’s ecosystems. It represents the amount of biologically productive land and sea area needed to regenerate the resources a human population consumes and to absorb and render harmless the corresponding waste. Using this assessment, it is possible to estimate how much of the Earth (or how many planet Earths) it would take to support humanity if everybody lived a given lifestyle. For 2005, humanity’s total ecological footprint was estimated at 1.3 planet Earths – in other words, humanity uses ecological services 1.3 times faster than Earths can renew them. See also: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/
Peak Energy: World's Largest Solar Energy Office Building Opens in …
A vast fan-shaped compound in China has officially taken the title of â??largest solar-powered office building in the worldâ??. Located in Dezhou in the Shangdong Province in northwest China, the 75000 square meter structure is a multi-use …
Hot electrons can double solar cell efficiency | Alternative …
Michael Naughton designed an ultra thin solar cell that captures hot electrons, possibly leading to solar cells that have much higher efficiencies.
Big Solar Moves East – Green Inc. Blog – NYTimes.com
The Long Island Power Authority agreed to buy nearly 50 megawatts of solar power in what it said was the largest such project in New York State.
Eco Tech: Hot Electrons Could Break Solar Panel Efficiency Limits …
Scientists at Boston College have built solar cells that successfully use hot electrons to increase the cell’s power output, which could be used as a concept for better solar cells that break conventional efficiency limits. …
DP&L To Construct 1.1 Megawatt Solar Facility In Ohio – Green Diary
The Dayton Power and Light Company (DP&L) will soon build a 1.1 Megawatt solar array near its Yankee substation in Washington Township, Montgomery County, Ohio. The company announced that it plans to begin with the project this month …
Report Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)
Report Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)
The newly formed Obama administration has listed greenhouse gas (GHG) tracking and reporting as a major goal, with the objective of protecting the future of the environment by reducing today’s carbon footprint. If no action were taken, the makeup of the earth would significantly altered. Future actions will establish a market drive carbon cap and trade program to drive GHG emissions reductions.
Greenhouse Gas tracking is outlined in The Climate Registry Protocol, which details the requirements for mandatory monitoring and tracking. The premise around greenhouse gas tracking are included in the U.S. Clean Air Act, aimed at improving air quality and lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes mandatory reporting of the gases contributing to global climate change from about 13,000 facilities nationwide. These facilities account for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions within the United States and present a logical starting point for emissions reductions in the US. The regulation would cover companies that either release large amounts of greenhouse gases (GHG) directly or produce or import fuels and chemicals that when burned emit large amounts of carbon (CO2) gases.
One of the major focuses of the Greenhouse Gas tracking protocol is refrigerant gases used in refrigeration and cooling systems by numerous facilities, including manufacturers, food processors, retailers, grocery stores, office buildings, municipalities and hospitals, just to name a few. Because of their chemical makeup, refrigerant gases contain significant levels of carbon in the form of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Use of these compounds has been regulated under the U.S. Clean Air Act for several years.
Greenhouse gases absorb and release radiation into the atmosphere, setting off a global warming effect on earth. The intent and overall goal of GHG tracking relates to better collection and management of the emissions data now so informed decisions can be made about future carbon trading schemes. The tracking protocols also help government entities to more accurately inventory the amounts of emissions reaching the atmosphere. The new GHG legislation puts in motion the data collection, organization, and first stage reporting mechanisms to allow the US to accurately calculate and maintain a GHG emissions baseline across the entire economy. This will allow for better understanding today as well as to determine progress for future Cap and Trade programs. With this accurate information, it can be determined if the guidelines are effective in lowering the harmful effects of these substances to the ozone layer.
Greenhouse Gas tracking involves measuring direct and indirect emissions and keeping extensive records on its usage, maintenance, leak containment and disposal. Heating and cooling systems, as well as other energy consumption, are defined as direct emissions.
Better and more effective GHG management is an objective of the current US government. No longer will the US sit by and watch the world attack the issue of climate change. The US is now taking action to lower carbon emissions to the betterment of future generations. By taking no action, the earth’s makeup would significantly change, with humans and animals adversely affected and marine and plant life severely damaged.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) management and reporting is now falling under the EPA regulations contained within The U.S. Clean Air Act because the causes of global climate change is now well know. Human activities and the use of global warming substances, like refrigerant gases, are all leading to increased global warming. The substances are carbon dioxide, chlorine, bromine, nitrous oxide, chloroflurocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, methane, methyl bromide, methyl chloroform, sulfur hexafluoride, hydroxyl, perfluorocarbobs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, fluorine, and the fluorinated gases hydrofluorinated ethers and nitrogen trifluoride. The mandatory law is aimed at reducing the use of these substances to lower the effects of global warming.
Beginning in 2010, GHG management, tracking, and reporting will be environmental law for the highest emitting facilities. Part of the management will revolve around better tracking and reporting of refrigerant gases. Entities must submit usage reports and service records for all refrigerants having high GWP. Special calculations are applied to refrigerants when any leads occur. The GHG emission reporting rules and related protocols allow for progressive companies to take advantage of software already created to help with carbon emissions reporting. Some web applications allow organizations to track GHGs to the asset level across global, distributed facilities.
Software provided by Verisae tracks carbon dioxide (CO2) gas emissions according to The Climate Registry protocols across all sites so companies can manage their carbon emissions and work towards reducing their carbon footprint. To learn more effective refrigerant management tactics and the tools, you can research http://www.Refrigerant-Tracker.com
Star News Of monsanto Seeds
Efforts Conservation
Efforts Conservation
How often have we come across lovely historical sites suffering from neglect and misuse? Every country needs to take good care of its historic places. Because things like malls, stadiums and highways can be built again. But a historic place which is neglected and misused will lose its glory and slowly disintegrate into zilch. And no amount of action plan or noble intentions can ever bring a historic place back to its former glory when it has been totally neglected and abused by us. The oldest of historic sites can be preserved for the future generations if we have a proper plan for their conservation.
Conversation of historic places requires a systematic approach. If the historic site is conserved with the help of a proper plan, it will show amazing results. While chalking out a plan for the conservation of historic sites, it’s very important to keep the costs under control. If the costs go up to an unwanted level, it will draw criticism from the general public and act like a death sentence for the conservation of other similar projects in the future.
The first thing which should be done by the restoration experts is to check the age of the historic site. This can be easily achieved by conducting a series of scientific tests. It can also be done if there are public or archaeological records of the site. Once we know the actual age of the historic site, we get to know the actual worth of the site – this doesn’t mean that if a site is not very ancient – it’s not worth taking care of.
Also check the sturdiness of the materials which have been used on the historic site. This will need a proper list of all the materials used on all the structures found on the site. Factors such as the effect of temperature, humidity, weathering, fire, air pollution, storms and flood on the material found on the site needs to be studied in detail, so that best possible plan to prevent further degradation of the site can be prepared.
Don’t forget to note the architectural design of any structures present on the site. This is needed to take help of conservation experts according to the style they specialize in. Taking the help of the best of experts who are not competent in the architectural design displayed at the historic site would create a major problem for your conservation project.
Your team of conservation experts also need to keep a track of all the past repairs and changes made on the historic site. The problems faced by the previous restoration team while restoring or repairing the historic site too needs to be researched and noted down. Always remember materials like wood and leather rot quite easily, on the other hand stone articles and pottery items always manage to survive better. Once you have finished your complete study of the historic site, you can then do the restoration part of the site step by step in a phased manner till it is complete. You might even have to restrict the number of visitors, once it has been restored, as although the site has got its former glory, it might not be in a state that it can be exposed to an endless number of people everyday.
For more information on the historical sites of the world, visit Matt’s website about world historical sites, especially his favorite place, tikal.
Irvine Unified School District Approves Expansive Solar Project …
Irvine Unified School District (IUSD) announced its approval to partner with SPG Solar and SunEdison to roll out the most comprehensive use of solar energy for a school district in the nation. The project will include installing solar …
Trony Solar: Don't Let the Sun Go Down on My IPO
UPDATED What’s not to like about Trony Solar? The Shenzhen, China-based solar startup brought in $79 million in revenue last …
Key Short Selling Changes In Solar Stocks (FSLR, JASO, SPWRA, STP …
The second half of November showed somewhat of a mixed bag in short selling activity in the universe of our actively traded and more prominent solar stocks. We saw a gain in short selling many names at the end of November versus …
Make: Online : CoolerBot is solar-powered and scares animals
MAKE subscriber and prolific robot-builder Steve Norris writes in to share his latest creation, the CoolerBot. Unlike most of the telepresence devices we see, this one is designed to be used outdoors, and sports solar panels to help …
Nanotechnology Now – Press Release: “Soitec expands into the fast …
Soitec expands into the fast growing solar energy market with the acquisition of Concentrix Solar, the leading provider of CPV solar systems for the industrial production of energy. Bernin, France | Posted on December 11th, 2009 …