I woke up at 5 a.m. on Sunday. Not sure why. The house was quiet and a soundless rain fell outside. I intended to snuggle back into bed for two more hours after checking on the old dog — assuming it was she-who-needs-to-go-out-at-exceedingly-early-hours who woke me.

I decided to check on the teenagers too. And there in the in the “media room” or Texas basement or whatever you call that room over the garage, was a nightmare of electricity consumption. The room was ablaze in light. The TV was blaring (could it be another Law & Order rerun?). The DVR glowed. The 14-year-old asleep on the couch as only someone his age could be. He was sent to his room — where a light also had been conveniently left on.

He couldn’t understand why I was upset, just as I never fully understood the vehemence with which my parents, children of the Depression, saved leftover bits of food in plastic baggies.

Putting on my child psychology hat, I know that it is not the 14-year-old electronic-wonder’s job to sweat these things. He is partaking of the world and building self-identity. He is not mentally oriented to turning things off. He’s more about turning them on. To him, leaving a computer in sleep mode is a good idea, because it’s ready when he returns. When he listens to music on the iPhone, it doesn’t occur to him that there’s a coal plant required for the recharge process.

Unfortunately, a lot of Americans are operating at this level. We really don’t want to think  too hard about rolling back our energy consumption. It’s difficult to figure out (how do I ride my bike to work when I work 25 miles away?)  and it’s sobering — I need to spend my savings on a new energy efficient furnace?

We’re a nation that feels entitled to many treats, spas, vacations, computers, TVs, big cars and the biggest houses. These aren’t bad things, intrinsically, but we’re being asked to rethink them, make our lives more sustainable, cultivate and tend our local gardens, so to speak. There’s work involved here, and yes, self-sacrifice.

Our parents or grandparents who lived through the 1930s learned about conservation when they got a new pair of socks or shoes, or some other supremely practical gift, for their birthday; when they wore a sibling’s hand-me-down dress to the school dance or ate a turkey dinner with all the dressings just once a year, because times were tough.

We need to learn a similar lesson. We know that oil is finite and we must find ways to move away from the polluting gasoline engine. We know that burning coal to make electricity is destroying our atmosphere. We know that fresh water is finite and we can deduce that there will be hard times ahead if we don’t address these issues.

Fortunately, we have many resources at our disposal. Technology is on the brink of creating affordable fuels from sustainable algae. We can still afford to loft giant solar panels in the desert. We can afford the 1-3 percent up-charge in our electricity bill to incorporate green energy over the next decade.

But can we act; can we learn to conserve; can we make bold forward-thinking decisions without feeling the deprivation?

That will require using the executive thinking that we adults are fully endowed with once we graduate from adolescence. Our incentive is to make a better place for those 14-year-olds who will inherit the world. What do we want to leave them?

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Okay, here’s the poop on cow power: Dairy farmers from Wisconsin to Vermont are learning that they – and their bovine partners – can produce more than milk and manure. By converting the methane from cow patties into electricity, rural farms can provide their community with power – and in the process, eliminate the odors associated with dairy farming.

“The neighbors like it,” quips Steve Costello of the Central Vermont Public Service (CVPS)’s Cow Power program, which supplies 4,000 customers with the help of  6,000 cows. “You can have a barbecue on the Fourth of July without worrying the dairy farm next door is going spread some manure and wipe everyone out!”

Much more than that, of course, are the ecological benefits of using cow power:

• It’s a renewable energy source, not a dirty or fossil-fuel fed one (half of the energy used in the U.S. comes from coal).

• It reduces methane emissions, which are more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, trapping more heat in the atmosphere pound per pound.

• The final, solid product – after a process that includes a “digester” which breaks down the chemicals and bacteria, while the methane is trapped to generate electricity – can be used for bedding that is similar to straw, which typically has to be trucked in. (Once soiled, the bedding can be recycled yet again – returned to the digester and covnerted to topsoil or sold as fertilizer.

• Farmers use the slurry product that comes out the other end of the process, so to speak, to fertilize their fields, but with much less danger of spreading bacteria and toxins into the soil when they spread their manure.

• The digester itself kills most of the pathogens found in maure, includin E coli.

• Bonus fact: One cow can keep two 100-watt lightbulbs lit 24 hours a day, presumably in perpetuity.

“You’re taking a huge amount of waste out of the stream, if you will,” says Costello, explaining that CVPS started Cow Power in 2005 and is one of four such programs in Vermont.

“Nationally, cow power may not work so well – you’re talking about cows, so it’s typically got to be in rural areas – but it replaces dirty energy when it can. And a lot of our farms are using the heat left over from the generator to heat water for cleaning – supplanting either propane or number two, heating oil. That’s thousands of gallons that they’re not burning.”

Cows: An electric idea

Costello is an enthusiastic promoter of cow poo as energy, but out in Waterloo, Wisconsin, Crave Brothers Farms is helping their cattle reach their ultimate potential: To make dairy products, while converting their poop into energy for their home and cheese factory, as well as hundreds of Wisconsin homes. (Crave cows produce 650 KW per hour, which can power 550 households).

Mark Crave, who has come in from his 1,800-acre spread to talk on the phone, says the idea isn’t a new one to the family, which produces Farmstead Classics brand cheeses. He and his three brothers own and run the farm, along with their combined 12 offspring, and some of their offspring. He says there are a number of reasons why the family has jumped on the poop train, not the least of which is that, once through the digesters and generators and presses, their cow manure has almost totally eliminated the need to buy commercial fertilizers. The Craves like that, financially and ecologically.

The brothers started their poop power program about three years ago, although elder brother Charles Crave had been contemplating it since he founded the farm/cheese factory in 1981.

“It’s something that’s always been on our radar. We grew up on a dairy farm about 60 miles from here. My dad loved farming and he loved innovating. He oftentimes, when we were growing up,  would take us to farming trade shows and on field trips. And in the car on the way home , he’d say, ‘Boy, wasn’t that something?’ Or ‘What if we tried this?’ … Having four of us around, we were constantly kicking that ball aorund, if you will: How to change things, how to improve things. … Charles was always interested in (cow power), but until recently, there weren’t that many options. The only system that was in place was  farmer-engineered, as I like to call it. Built by the operators.

“The system we have is actually owned by Clear Horizons – an offshoot of a large electricity contractor in Milwaukee,” Crave says. “They’re looking at green energy as a growth industry. … But our motivation for doing it was that it allows us to better manage the nutrients in our soil. It changes how those nutrients escape into the system, so we can actually apply them to our fields. … It hasn’t saved us any money – yet. The initial capital outlay is more than $1 million. But we expect to (recoup) in about ten years.” (Note: The Craves send their energy to a power utility and then buy it back to power their farm.)

In addition to having 1,100 cows and 900 head of young stock – with a total of 950 milking cows – the Crave family grow corn, soybeans and alfalfa. (They also make an allegedly killer cheddar). And when it comes to fertilizing their crops, they, like all farmers, have limits on the amount of phosphorus (which fertilizer contains) that can be put into the soil.

“Most of the phosphorus (translation: fertilizer) that’s in manure is in the solid portion of the manure,” Crave says, explaining why dairy farmers spread their cows’ poo over their fields (thus the potential July Fourth stink-out), to create a better yield.  ”Our cow manure,  as it goes into the system, is 12 percent solid. Once it goes through this digestion process – which takes anywhere from three to four weeks’ retention time in the digester – it changes byproducts like nitrogen from an organic to a mineral state, and that makes it (nitrogen) less volatile. So that means It’s more stable in the soil, so it doesn’t leach out with rain.

“But by doing this, we’re also able to better manage the nutrients in our soils,” Crave adds. “The number one limit for applying manure to our cropland is phosphorus. Historically, before we had the digester, when we would go apply manure to the soil, when we reached our limit, we’d have to test it. … Now, we can apply manure as fertilizer at whatever rate that crop will use, and we can meet our fertilizer needs without having to to buy commercial fertilizer. It (the whole process) allows us to separate our manure into different components, where we can use it.” And literally recycle it!

Here’s essentially how it works: The cow’s manure is routed to anaerobic “digester”, which is kept around 100 degrees Fahrenheit for 20-30 days. Bacteria break down the waste, producing, among other things, methane gas, which builds up pressure in the digester. Next, the biogas is delivered through a pipe into a modified natural gas engine, which in turn fuels the engine, making it spin the generator, creating electricity.

In addition, as Mark Crave explains it, “when the manure comes out of the digester we put it into a screw press and separate out about half of the solids. What we do with those solids is multiple-use: Number one, those solids (which, pressed, become thin, fibrous organic compound – voila cow “straw”) go back into the barn and are put into the stalls.  It’s a very inert product that has very little odor, it’s very much like green sawdust and in fact probably has less of a small than even sawdust. It’s a fluffy, very loose laying product, and the cows just love to lay in it.”

What remains after that bedding is used, is again recycled using the digester, and can be sold as potting soil.

“It’s basically a closed loop system,” says Crave.

Who knew poop had so many positive qualities?

(Photo credits: Blue Spruce Farm — Steve Dvorak, left, and Melissa Dvorak, right, talk with Eral Audte and David Dunn at Blue Spruce Farm while the separator behind them takes solids out of the liquid manure after it is digested, so the liquid can be used as fertilizer and the solids used as animal bedding; Earl Audet, left, co-owner of Blue Spruce farm, and David Dunn, program Manager for CVPS Cow Power^TM, examine dry solids left over from the digestion process.)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Power bills got you down, and you can’t figure out what you’re doing wrong because you’re trying to do so much right?

The Alliance to Save Energy wants you to realize the most from your efforts to reduce electricity consumption, so they’ve released this checklist for you to consider as you try to trim those galloping electric bills:

1 – If the payoff from your home fleet of energy efficient products doesn’t seem to be reducing your electric bill, ask yourself is it the “dreaded Snackwell effect”? Are you gulping energy in the belief that your more efficient computer, TVs and refrigerator will curb the bill so significantly you no longer have to worry? This phenomenon, akin to dieters indulging on low-calorie foods (like Snackwells) because they estimate that they’re consuming fewer calories overall, could be giving you a false perception of the energy-tightening you’ve done.

2. Have you added big energy users – like a big screen TV that doesn’t carry the Energy Star seal – that are undermining your other energy efficiency actions?  Look at what you’re plugging in around the house.

3 – Have energy rates increased in your area? This could account for why your bill is static despite taking strong steps to cut back.

4 – Are you staying home more in this down economy? Watching movies at home, working from home. All these activities consume electricity.

And we might add…

5 – Keeping those TVs/VCR/DVRs on a power strip, which you turn off during the day, can reduce your household’s consumption of “phantom power”, that small, but cumulative trickle of energy that’s used by electronics that are plugged in, even though they’re not turned on.

For more tips on saving energy at home, see the Alliance’s list of ideas.   www.ase.org/consumers. The Alliance is a coalition of business, government, consumer and advocacy groups, founded in 1977.

Advertisement

Shifting the U.S. toward more renewable wind and solar power would not only generate thousands of jobs and lower consumers’ electric bills, it would create new income for rural residents and vastly reduce carbon emissions, according to a new analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The UCS released a study today showing that if utilities were required to obtain 25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025 it would:

• Create nearly 300,000 new domestic jobs

• Save consumers some $65 billion in lower gas and electricity bills through 2025; up to $95 billion through 2030.

• Generate $13.5 billion in new income for farmers, ranchers and rural landowners who could gain from hosting new wind and solar installations

• Reduce global warming pollution by 277 million metric tons a year by 2025, the equivalent of the annual output of 70 average-size new coal-fired power plants.

The analysis was released as Congress considers enacting a renewable energy standard (RES) – a requirement that U.S. utilities obtain a certain percentage of their power from renewable sources. Bills calling for an increase in renewable power to 25 percent by 2025 are active in both the House and the Senate.

“A strong renewable electricity standard would help pull our economy out of the ditch by creating nearly 300,000 new jobs,” said Jeff Deyette, an analyst with the UCS Clean Energy Program and co-author of the study, in a statement.

“Our study found that, kilowatt-hour for kilowatt-hour, renewable energy generates more than three times as many jobs than fossil fuels, leading to a net job gain of 202,000. More renewable energy would mean more workers building wind turbines and installing solar panels here in the United States.”

Said Alan Nogee, the UCS Clean Energy Program director: “A typical household would save nearly $70 in annual gas and electricity costs by 2025. Every little bit helps.”

As long as the world is busy refining crude oil for gasoline and other petroleum products, it may as well try to maximize the benefits from the process.

That’s the aim of “cogeneration” plants, such as the newest one put into action by  ExxonMobil in Antwerp, Belgium. The refinery there will capture heat from the refining process to generate electricity, “cogenerating” or making dual use of the refining process, according to a press release.

ExxonMobil estimates that the practice will generate 125 megawatts of power and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 200,000 tons per year, the equivalent of removing about 90,000 cars from Europe’s roads.

The company also notes that the Antwerp facility will be “significantly more efficient than traditional methods of producing steam and power separately”. The result is lower operation costs for the company, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions for the everyone.

New cogeneration facilities are under construction in Singapore and China, which should increase ExxonMobil’s cogeneration capacity to more than 5,000 megawatts in the next three years, the press release stated.

A high-powered conference on the future of energy in America was held Monday in Washington; while it produced some consensus about the foundation necessary to meet future needs, it suggested there might be conflicts ahead in getting there.

Attendees, who ranged from former president Bill Clinton to officials at state utilities, heard plenty about the necessity of a new “smart grid” capable of shuttling electricity cross-country from renewable sources like wind and solar farms to the high-density cities that need the juice.

But not everyone was optimistic about the nitty-gritty of building such a grid, and most reports from the event are emphasizing differences of opinion over whom should control its design and placement. As this story from Bloomberg explains, regional authorities don’t want to see the federal government trying to dictate from above. Frederick Butler, of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, warned against using imminent domain to implement a nationwide plan, even while admitting that waiting for cooperation from a patchwork of utility fiefdoms isn’t conducive to quick movement on an issue widely understood to be critical.

Expressing his frustration with those delays, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that he plans to introduce legislation putting the Smart Grid on a fast track.

“We cannot let 231 state regulators hold up progress,” he said, ensuring that he would be quoted in almost every story about the meeting — making him for the moment more colorful than Texas oilman-turned-wind-evangelist T. Boone Pickens, whose most widely quoted utterance was a self-deprecating remark about being seated between two Nobel laureates, Al Gore and Steven Chu.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Everyone knows that shade from the sun keeps you cooler, but a new study has quantified the benefit in a way homeowners might want to note. The right kind of shade, it turns out, can easily shave ten percent off your summertime electric bill.

David Laband, a professor in Auburn University’s School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, studied 160 area houses between May and September — quantifying the amount of shade trees cast on each and comparing their power usage. Those with a sizable amount of what he called “heavy shade” had bills over ten percent lower than those with no shade at all. (11.4%, to be exact, which in this study amounted to between $31 and $33 per month in savings.)

Trees providing lighter shade could help a household achieve similar savings, but many more trees were needed. One of Leband’s hopes is that this information will encourage real estate developers not to bulldoze big old trees because they interfere with house plans. Even if builders re-plant young trees in more convenient spots, the loss of shade will be significant.

Of course, where trees stand in relation to a house makes a difference. “We looked at the amount of shade in the early morning, early afternoon and late afternoon,” a statement from the researcher read. “If you have trees on the west side of your house, you will have a much lower power bill.”

The study cost over a quarter of a million dollars, vastly more than the electric-bill differential in the houses Laband studied. If the data he collected filters out into the development community, though, where “green building” is gaining traction, it might not take long to pay off.

Copyright © 2008 Green Right Now| Distributed by Noofangle Media

It’s not often you get a warm and fuzzy feeling about your utility provider – unless perhaps a brown out zaps your air conditioning and the summer sweat blurs your vision. But New Mexico residents can think happy thoughts about their power companies.

Four New Mexico electricity providers have partnered to bring the first large solar installation to the state in hope of providing solar-generated electricity by 2012, the companies announced Monday.

The project, to be built by the bid-winning solar contractor, will be large enough to deliver between 211,000 and 375,000 megawatt-hours per year – enough to power at least 29,000 to 52,000 typical New Mexico homes.
The facility must use state of the art “parabolic trough” technology, according to a joint request for proposals for the solar installation.

That technology uses trough-shaped mirrors that focus sunlight onto an oil-filled tube. The oil generates steam which turns a generator and produces electricity. Because steam is employed and can be stored, the installation can produce electricity at night and on cloudy days, giving it a leg up on more basic solar generators.

The four cooperating power companies serve nearly all of the states’ residents and have required that the installation be based in New Mexico, a reasonable request given the state’s sunny location. The cooperating companies include: El Paso Electric, Xcel Energy, PNM, and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association .

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media