Having your own pool to exercise or relax in is a treat the entire family can enjoy together. If you strive to live in the most environmentally friendly way possible, you likely know how having a pool can increase your carbon footprint. To keep a swimming pool running efficiently, you must use energy to run the filter system and chemicals to prevent bacteria in the water. If the thought of sacrificing your swimming pool is out of the question, use these tips to help you run it more economically and eco-friendly.

Conserve water

As soon as you fill your swimming pool each season, the water begins to evaporate. Refilling your pool uses water that could otherwise be conserved. A simple solution for this is to use a pool cover. A UV-resistant, polyethylene pool cover reduces your water evaporation and solves heat loss problems drastically.

Shelter your pool from the elements

A cool breeze on a hot summer day feels great, but if it’s blowing on your swimming pool it can increase energy consumption. An unsheltered pool loses heat more quickly and is prone to faster water evaporation. These problems can be solved and you can decrease your energy use by installing a solid fence around the immediate perimeter of your pool.

Keep the heat in

Above ground pools can be hard on your energy bill because heat tends to escape through the sides. To avoid wasting energy heating the same water over and over again, surround the sides of your pool with a material like bubble wrap, as air is an excellent insulator. Fill in any gaps in the siding with spray foam insulation.

Use solar power

The money you spend every summer to keep your pool water warm results in a bill you’ll continue having to pay each year you use your swimming pool. A heating system that runs on solar power requires an initial investment but pays for itself in two years. A swimming pool solar system draws water from the pool, runs it through a filter, transfers it to the solar collectors to be heated and then returns the water to your pool.

Go easy on chemicals

Typical swimming pool chemicals are harsh on the environment and your family, but it’s important to make sure the water is clean and free of bacteria. Use oxygen-based algae removers or enzyme-based clarifiers to keep your pool water safe and clean while protecting the environment and your skin. Alternately, reduce your chemical use with an ultraviolet disinfectant system which kills harmful microorganisms by exposing pool water to ultraviolet light.

Progressively greener pool technology and care methods should help ease your conscience when it comes to installing or owning a pool. Reduce your family’s carbon footprint by conserving energy, using natural power sources and using nontoxic cleaners in your pool. The benefits of going green with your swimming pool will continue long after swimming season is over.

You have to check out this new development in the wind energy field. Altaeros Energy has come up with a blimp that is tethered to the group and can be raised from 300-1500 ft in the air to capture wind energy which is then transmitted to the ground via the tether.

From their press release:

Altaeros Energies, a wind energy company formed out of MIT, announced today that it has demonstrated high altitude power production from an automated prototype of its airborne wind turbine.

The company recently completed testing of a 35-foot scale prototype of the Altaeros Airborne Wind Turbine (AWT) at the Loring Commerce Center in Limestone, Maine. The prototype, fabricated in partnership with Doyle Sailmakers of Salem, Massachusetts, achieved several key milestones. The AWT climbed up 350 feet high, produced power at altitude, and landed in an automated cycle. In addition, the prototype lifted the top-selling Southwest Skystream turbine to produce over twice the power at high altitude than generated at conventional tower height. The turbine was successfully transported and deployed into the air from a towable docking trailer.
Altaeros Airborne Wind Turbine prototype during testing in Limestone, Maine (Altaeros Energies 2012)

Altaeros is developing its first product to reduce energy costs by up to 65 percent by harnessing the stronger winds found over 1,000 feet high and reducing installation time from weeks to days. In addition, it is designed to have virtually no environmental or noise impact and to require minimal maintenance. The Altaeros AWT will displace expensive fuel used to power diesel generators at remote industrial, military, and village sites. In the long term, Altaeros plans to scale up the technology to reduce costs in the offshore wind market.

“For decades, wind turbines have required cranes and huge towers to lift a few hundred feet off the ground where winds can be slow and gusty,” explained Ben Glass, the inventor of the AWT
and Altaeros Chief Executive Officer. “We are excited to demonstrate that modern inflatable
materials can lift wind turbines into more powerful winds almost everywhere—with a platform
that is cost competitive and easy to setup from a shipping container.”

The AWT uses a helium-filled, inflatable shell to ascend to higher altitudes where winds are
more consistent and over five times stronger than those reached by traditional tower-mounted
turbines. Strong tethers hold the AWT steady and send electricity down to the ground.
The lifting technology is adapted from aerostats, industrial cousins of passenger blimps that for
decades have lifted heavy communications and radar equipment into the air for long periods of
time. Aerostats are rated to survive hurricane-level winds and have safety features that ensure a
slow descent to the ground.

The emerging airborne or “high altitude” wind sector was recently featured on the cover of the
March 2011 issue of Popular Mechanics. In December 2011, the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) released draft guidelines allowing the new class of airborne wind systems
to be sited under existing regulation.

May Reach US$20/kg in 2012

According to EnergyTrend, a research division of TrendForce, polysilicon spot price is closing in on major vendors’ manufacturing cost – this week’s spot price has already fallen below the US$23/kg mark, but vendors indicate polysilicon price is gradually stabilizing. TrendForce believes polysilicon price may hit US$20/kg this year, but as first-tier makers are standing firm on price, second and third-tier manufacturers are unable to make a move on their own. Thus, TrendForce expects polysilicon price will stay above US$20/kg.

Source: EnergyTrend

Industry players indicate, polysilicon price will continue to fall mainly due to continuous production. Unwilling to hold on to too much inventory, contract-bound makers continue to sell raw materials. Without a significant improvement in market demand, this much supply will likely keep polysilicon market price low, maintaining the downward trend.

Vendors indicate the four main polysilicon suppliers are all highly cost competitive, leaving little breathing room for smaller makers. While there are some manufacturers that want to stabilize price, others are aggressively pushing price down to expedite the elimination of weaker suppliers. Makers with cost advantage and capacity covered by contracts will adjust their product retail prices in accordance with their main competitors. TrendForce expects the market price will be led by the price-cutting makers – with manufacturing cost around US$19-20, suppliers will still see 5-10% profit margins.

In 2012, TrendForce forecasts contract price will be around US$26-28, while spot price will see a low of US$19.5-22.5. Polysilison suppliers are unlikely to follow in the footsteps of cell and wafer makers, especially since installation volume is expected to increase slightly this year. Furthermore, as there has been little news of polysilicon makers resuming halted production, it is probable polysilicon price will stay above US$20/kg.

Market rumors indicate some polysilicon manufacturers plan to hold downstream clients to their contracts, which has caused makers to clear excess raw materials more quickly. Some polysilicon makers have offered contract prices below US$30/kg, putting pressure on spot price. This week’s lowest polysilicon spot price was US$21/kg, and average price was US$22.776/kg, a 3.82% decrease. Solar wafers and cells saw only slight price decreases this week. Average multi-Si wafer price was US$1.076/piece, a decline of 0.46%, while average mono-Si wafer price was US$1.551/piece, a 0.64% decrease. Solar cell price was relatively stable – this week’s average was US$0.474/Watt, a slight decrease of 0.21%. Due to pressures from China’s domestic market, solar module price fell to an average of US$0.785/Watt, a 0.38% decline.

I have worked with roofing contractors in recent years and they have seen some movement towards this idea of light colored and insulated roofing materials that save energy and cooling. I put a light colored roof on my home and noticed an almost immediate drop in interior temperature and had less need to cool the house in summer. Makes for a good read.

Painting roofs white and using light-coloured materials to surface roads and pavements would not only make cities cooler in summer, it would save the same amount of carbon as taking all the cars in the world off the roads for 50 years, a study has found.

One of the simplest, yet most effective, ways of engineering the urban environment to cope with global warming is to increase the reflectivity of the cityscape so that more of the incoming sunlight is directed back into space, scientists said.

City buildings in warm climates with “cool coloured” surfaces that reflect infra-red radiation would also be cooler than traditional buildings and so would conserve energy – and carbon – that would otherwise be used on air conditioning.

Increasing solar reflectance or “albedo” has been suggested as a way of combating the “heat island” effect of towns and cities, where summers are made unbearably hotter in built-up areas by Tarmac roads and dark buildings that absorb sunlight.

Two years ago, Barack Obama’s top man on global warming, Professor Steven Chu, the US Secretary of Energy, suggested at the Royal Society in London that one of the most effective engineering measures to tackle rising temperatures is to paint roofs.

source article

Washington Out of Step With Public? Little Confidence Seen in National Lawmakers Finding Solutions is Evident in Across-the-Board Political Support for Grassroots Drive to Take Back Issue.

Clean energy issues and solutions. Majorities of Republicans, Independents and Democrats agree that the United States should move away from its reliance on dirty energy sources that foul the air and water and toward a future that makes greater use of clean energy sources, according to a major new ORC International survey conducted for the nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute (CSI).

A key finding: More than three out of four Americans (76 percent) – including 58 percent of Republicans, 83 percent of Independents, and 88 percent of Democrats — think that the United States should move to a sustainable energy future through “a reduction in our reliance on nuclear power, natural gas and coal, and instead, launch a national initiative to boost renewable energy and energy efficiency.”

However, the bipartisan support for clean energy does not mean that Americans think that Washington, D.C., is on the same page with them. More than three out of four Americans (77 percent) – including 70 percent of Republicans, 76 percent of Independents, and 85 percent of Democrats — believe that “the energy industry’s extensive and well-financed public relations, campaign contributions and lobbying machine is a major barrier to moving beyond business as usual when it comes to America’s energy policy.”

As a result, more than eight out of 10 Americans (83 percent) – including 69 percent of Republicans, 84 percent of Independents, and 95 percent of Democrats — agree with the following statement: “The time is now for a new, grassroots-driven politics to realize a renewable energy future. Congress is debating large public investments in energy and we need to take action to ensure that our taxpayer dollars support renewable energy– one that protects public health, promotes energy independence and the economic well being of all Americans.”

Pam Solo, founder and president, Civil Society Institute, said: “Our survey is a call to action: Americans across the political spectrum think that it is time for decisive action toward a renewable energy future that will protect public health and provide reliable and cost effective energy. They are ready for leadership and, when offered choices in energy futures, choose an energy path that will protect public health and not sacrifice the quality of our air and water. Americans believe the partisan gridlock can only be challenged by a grassroots-driven process that challenges the undue political influence of the fossil fuel and nuclear power interests.”

Heather White, general counsel, Environmental Working Group, said: “Dirty energy companies and their lobbyists like to marginalize those of us who are working towards a cleaner energy future for the U.S. But the verdict of this new survey is clear: We are the majority, not the ‘fringe’ when it comes to how Americans of all political leanings view energy issues. The truth is that those who are clinging to America’s dirty energy past are the people who are way out of step with the American political mainstream. The survey shows that Republicans, Democrats and Independents can sit down and hammer out a U.S. energy future that makes sense; it’s just that major energy companies are doing everything they can to keep common sense from prevailing.”

Conducted March 22-25, 2012, the new ORC International survey of 1,019 Americans shows that:

* About two out of three Americans (66 percent) – including 58 percent of Republicans, 65 percent of Independents, and 75 percent of Democrats — agree that the term “‘clean energy standard’ should not be used to describe any energy plan that involves nuclear energy, coal-fired power, and natural gas that comes from hydraulic fracturing, also known as ‘fracking’”.

* Even with high gasoline prices today, 85 percent of Americans – including 76 percent of Republicans, 87 percent of Independents, and 91 percent of Democrats — agree with the statement “energy development should be balanced with health and environmental concerns” versus just 13 percent who think “health and environmental concerns should not block energy development.”

* More than two out of three (68 percent) think it is “a bad idea for the nation to ‘put on hold’ progress towards cleaner energy sources during the current economic difficulty.”

* About three out of four Americans (73 percent) agree that “federal spending on energy should focus on developing the energy sources of tomorrow, such as wind and solar, and not the energy sources of yesterday, such as nuclear power.” Fewer than one in four (22 percent) say that “federal spending on energy should focus on existing energy sources, such as nuclear, and not emerging energy sources, such as wind and solar.”

OTHER KEY SURVEY FINDINGS

* More than two out of three Americans (68 percent) – including 60 percent of Republicans, 76 percent of Independents, and 74 percent of Democrats — think that America’s “new energy future” should be guided by the “precautionary principle,” which would work very much like the Hippocratic oath does for doctors: “The precautionary principle would advocate a conservative approach to the use of technologies that may put public health at risk and create irreversible environmental harm. If there is not enough scientific evidence showing that it is safe, precaution should guide decisions in those cases.”

* Eight out of 10 Americans agree that “water shortages and the availability of clean drinking water are real concerns. America should put the emphasis on first developing new energy sources that require less water and result in lower water pollution. “Only 15 percent of Americans think that “America should proceed first with developing energy sources even if they may have significant water pollution and water shortage downsides.”

* Two thirds of Americans (67 percent) think that “political leaders should help to steer the U.S. to greater use of cleaner energy sources – such as increased efficiency, wind and solar – that result in fewer environmental and health damages.” Under a third of Americans (30 percent) think that “political leaders should stay out of the energy markets and let private enterprise have a free hand in picking energy sources and setting prices.”

* More than eight out of 10 Americans (82 percent) – including 78 percent of Republicans, 81 percent of Independents, and 85 percent of Democrats — agree with the following statement: ‘Whether they are referred to as ‘subsidies,’ ‘tax incentives’ or ‘loan guarantees,’ the use of taxpayer dollars for energy projects are long-term investments. However, government incentives for energy must benefit public health and economic well-being. Clear guidelines are needed to direct public energy investments by shifting more of the risk from taxpayers and ratepayers and more to the companies involved.’”

* About three out of four Americans (75 percent) – including 58 percent of Republicans, 84 percent of Independents, and 86 percent of Democrats — think that “Congress and state public utility commissions that regulate electric utilities should put more emphasis on renewable energy and increased energy efficiency … and less emphasis on major investments in new nuclear, coal and natural gas plants.”

* Despite high gas prices, less than one in five Americans (16 percent) think that “the energy price paid by consumers is the only factor that makes any difference. Production damages, such as from mining, environmental impacts such as pollution, health harms, and other costs associated with energy should be considered less important factors.” By contrast, 81 percent of Americans believe that “the price paid by consumers is only part of the cost of energy. We have to look at the whole picture — including environmental and health damages — when we talk about what a particular source of energy costs America.”

* Nearly six in 10 Americans (56 percent) are now aware of the natural gas drilling process commonly referred to as “fracking.” Fewer than three in 10 Americans (28 percent) are “not aware at all” of this extraction process.

* Eight out of 10 Americans (81 percent) who are aware of fracking say that they are concerned – including nearly half (47 percent) who are “very concerned” – about the impact of fracking on water quality.

* About nine out of 10 Americans (89 percent) agree that “U.S. energy planning and decision making must be made with full knowledge and understanding about the availability of water regionally and locally, and the impact this water use from specific energy choices has on their economies, including agricultural production.”

* Four out five Americans (80 percent) – including 78 percent of Republicans, 83 percent of Independents, and 82 percent of Democrats — oppose the use by utilities in some states of advance billing – known as “Construction Work in Progress” – to pay for the construction of new nuclear and other power plants. Only 13 percent agree that “ratepayers should pay for electricity they use, and construction of nuclear reactors and other power plants that may come on line in the future.”

* Eight out of 10 Americans think U.S. taxpayers and ratepayers should not “finance the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the United States through tens of billions of dollars in proposed new federal loan guarantees.” Three out of four Americans (76 percent) would support “a shift of federal loan-guarantee support for energy away from nuclear reactors and towards clean, renewable energy, such as wind and solar.”

For the full survey findings, go to http://www.CivilSocietyInstitute.org on the Web.

Even if the motive isn’t actually green in the environmental sense, efforts to improve data center energy efficiency will help drive a greenhouse gas emissions reduction of approximately 13 percent compared with a “business as usual” approach.

The reductions are being driven by heightened attention to electricity costs and enabled by investments in virtualization, cloud computing, advanced cooling technologies and more sophisticated management tools, according to a new report from Pike Research, focused on Green Data Centers.

“The drive toward green data centrers is a response to business requirements to reduct costs across the company as well as a response to environmental concerns,” said Pike Research director Eric Woods, in a press release about the data. “Within the data center environment, that translates to a mandate to reduce energy consumption, which in turn is driving innovation. Data center operators are exploring new ideas related to business models, facility construction, layout and design, air flow dynamics, new technology, and monitoring and management tools.”

read more

In honor of Earth Day 2012, Skype brought together a selection of panelists on a group video call to share their views on the environment. Watch a conversation on global climate change, environmental awareness, and some of the best practices for the eco-conscious.

Do you have thoughts on this debate? We would love to hear them. Give a shout out below and tell us if you love it or hate it.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 47 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions are from existing buildings. From a global perspective, reducing energy consumption in buildings is imperative for a sustainable future.

So when property owners and managers transform an existing facility into one that’s a high-performance building, what does that mean? Essentially, it means doing more with less. High-performance buildings are energy efficient, and therefore, easier and more affordable to operate and maintain. They provide healthier and more comfortable workspaces, making them more attractive to tenants and more desirable to own.

Owners, managers and investors can transform properties into high-performance buildings by focusing on strategies, technologies and expertise to save energy, water and building materials. Building technologies are rapidly improving while costs are declining, making it easier to reduce energy use and costs without sacrificing comfort and productivity, or spending a great deal of money. This technology can also provide comfortable working conditions, the right temperature and humidity, and the right level of lighting in a very efficient and cost-effective way. Examples include high-efficiency replacement motors, variable frequency drives (VFDs), lighting and controls for heating and cooling. Chiller and refrigeration upgrades, industrial process improvements and compressed air system improvements also help save on energy and maintenance costs, while improving a building’s carbon footprint.

The good news is that there are substantial incentives available on the Federal, state and city levels, as well as from utilities, to help businesses make smart investments in energy efficiency. Before you implement an energy management plan, check to see what funding may be available in your area. For example, in New York City, the Con Edison Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Program offers rebates and incentives for high efficiency electric and gas equipment, customized energy efficiency projects and energy audits.

You can learn how to transform your property into a high-performance building at the Con Edison 2012 Energy Efficiency Summit on May 1 at the New York Hilton. For more information and to register, visit www.conEdsummit.com.

David Pospisil is Program Manager of Con Edison’s Commercial & Industrial Energy Efficiency Program, New York, N.Y. For more information about the C&I Energy Efficiency Program, contact the Con Edison Green Team at 1-877-860-6118 or visit www.conEd.com/greenteam.

Carbon Storage – and More

A novel process developed by a University professor with help from an IREE grant aims to produce clean, renewable energy while reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

A University of Minnesota earth sciences professor and a postdoctoral fellow in his work group have imagined a new process for generating electricity with a two-for-one climate benefit. Their “CO2 plume geothermal” (CPG) technology would draw heat from the Earth to produce electricity without producing carbon dioxide—while at the same time geologically sequestering CO2 that would otherwise be emitted into the air by traditional fossil-fuel-burning power plants, CO2 distilleries or other CO2 emitters.

Best of all, the process was born of a bright idea that puts existing technology to work. Says Martin Saar, a professor in the College of Science and Engineering, “Virtually all of the technology has already been tested.”

Saar’s geothermal process is on a fast track to production. An initial $600,000 grant from the Institute on the Environment’s Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment helped leverage a $1.5 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. The University has applied for international patents, and a start-up company is seeking capital to build a pilot plant.

“IREE was absolutely critical in making any of this happen,” says Saar. “It really got us going as an interdisciplinary team to investigate CO2 plume geothermal.”

The idea emerged four years ago as Saar and then–graduate student Jimmy Randolph were driving to a field site in northern Minnesota. They were batting about ideas for Randolph’s Ph.D. project on geothermal energy, and also, at the time, unrelated project on geologic CO2 sequestration—the process of pumping CO2 into deep, naturally permeable geologic formations or reservoirs below caprocks to reduce its concentration in the atmosphere and to slow global warming.

“Then the lightbulb went up in our heads,” says Saar. “We had a pretty good hunch in the car right then and there that this could be big.”

Here’s how it would work.

Their geothermal plant would pump CO2 down an injection well into a salty aquifer 2 to 5 kilometers below the surface, where tremendous pressure and temperatures of 70 to 200 degrees C would transform the gas first into a liquid and eventually into a “supercritical” state. “It has liquid-like density and gas-like viscosity,” says Saar. “It’s not really anything we’re familiar with in the everyday world, but most materials do this at sufficiently high pressures and temperatures.”

The supercritical CO2 would flow through porous bedrock more easily than water. Becoming far less dense than water as it warms, the CO2 would rise quickly through the brine-soaked bedrock and pool beneath a virtually impermeable caprock, such as shale. The now hot, low-density fluid would buoyantly rise through a production well without pumping. At the surface, the CO2 would drive a turbine— more efficiently and vigorously than water drives conventional steam-generation turbines. After cooling, the CO2 would be pumped back down the injection well, flowing in a closed, geothermal heat self-powered thermosyphon loop that would let none escape to the atmosphere. The geothermally generated power could help run the CO2 injection pumps that provide the initial CO2 captured from the CO2 emitter. In addition, revenue from any additional power generation could help defray the cost of carbon capture and sequestration.

Saar imagines his geothermal plant would piggyback on the carbon sequestration plants that many scientists, engineers and policy makers envision will sequester CO2 deep underground to help mitigate the effect of greenhouse gas production on climate. Indeed, dozens of CO2 sequestration plants are being planned or are already operating around the world. Moreover, oil companies routinely inject CO2 deep into oil- or other hydrocarbon-bearing formations to force out remaining hydrocarbons in so-called enhanced oil recovery operations. Suitable geology is fairly common, including the oil fields of the Williston Basin in North Dakota and Alberta Basin in Canada.

CO2 injection presents little risk of earthquakes or serious ground deformation. “The oil industry has been doing it for decades,” says Saar. “Adding geothermal to it should actually reduce seismic risks, because what happens when you tap the heat out of it, you reduce the pressure.”

The IREE grant helped Saar assemble a multidisciplinary team to study the feasibility of CO2 plume geothermal from the subsurface to the electrical grid. The project includes specialists from the College of Science and Engineering; the College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences; and the Humphrey School of Public Affairs. The team has applied for a National Science Foundation grant to carry the load once the IREE grant expires this year. And the start-up, Heat Mining Co. LLC, is pursuing venture capital to build a pilot plant within three to four years.

Such a short time line appears possible because the pieces of a CO2 plume geothermal plant already exist—from suitable geology, to well technology, to at least prototype CO2 turbines.

“That’s the beauty about it,” says Saar. “It’s one of those things where you don’t have a huge amount of risk in terms of technology because all the components are fairly well known.”

source

Sortable How Green is the iPad?

What do you think about this infographic? Leave your comments below. We would love to hear your thoughts.

Did you find the article thought provoking? We certainly did, and so did hundreds of our regular readers. It seems the more answers we find, the more questions that are asked. By signing up for our newsletter you will be notified when we post our next article on ipad. Join thousands like you and stay on top of the latest news as it is released!