Spin Focus: 2011

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

The sky is Green?

The Future of Eco-Friendly Air Travel

With the holiday season officially in full swing here in the U.S more than likely you or someone close to you will be traveling in the near future. While some of these trips are as simple as a car ride across the state or to a mountain cabin some 48,000 Americans still chose to fly to their thanksgiving and other holiday gatherings.

The number of people choosing to fly for the holidays has gone up by 4% from last year and is expect to rise again as we come closer to Christmas and New Years. Regardless of the reason for this shift (high gas prices, large distances or a desire to escape the snow) this means more flights, more fuel consumption and thus more emissions than previous years.

Needless to say in an industry that makes its money with fossil fuel powered vehicles carbon emissions and environmental impact appear to be necessary evils for the time being. But soon all this may be a thing of the past as bio fuels and carbon offsetting techniques take a stab at fixing our flying problem.

Other than the obvious burning of fuel as a source of increased carbon emissions and the massive fuel demands of take off and landing such large vehicles flying also means that these harmful toxins are released much closer to the ozone layer and often over the ocean.

Transcontinental flights spend the majority of their flight burning fuel in the jet stream above Earths major oceans causing the emissions that include not only vapor but also unburned particles to collect in the ocean and upper atmosphere causing the thinning of the ozone layer, increased acidic levels in the ocean and a toxic jet stream effecting areas that flights may never have directly passed through or even near.

With all this caused by flights it’s hard to imagine that any realistic solution short of ceasing flights in their entirety will be even a loose step in the right direction. However some pioneers in biofuels think they are blazing a trail to cleaner travel and clearer skies.

Using mixes of biomaterial and traditional jet fuel Alaskan Airlines and United Airlines are hoping to reduce the carbon emissions of aviation and work towards a sustainable industry. The fuel sources are comprised of about 20 to 50% biofuel made from ethanol, algae and even fast food oil and grease waste while the rest of the mix is still traditional petroleum based jet fuel.

While innovations like turbo prop planes and more efficient jet engines are decreasing the fuel consumption of flight the average commercial flight still burns around 900 gallons of fuel per hour of sustained flight.

Only 15,000 gallons of bio fuel will be introduced into the mix over a test period of 75 flights for Alaskan airlines going from Seattle Washington to Portland Oregon with biofuels making up a small portion of the fuel mix coupled with an efficient turbo prop powered Q400 and Boeing 737 the hope is that emissions will decrease and further research can be conducted using these flights as real world tests to improve and further develop the technology.

The biofuels are made from algae, ethanol (corn and sugar cane based) and used cooking oils and grease. This is similar to the work we have seen from the NASCAR racing series and Formula One (both have switched from Brazilian sugar cane based ethanol to American corn based ethanol) these efforts have changed an industry making for a greener sport, decreased emissions and new jobs in a developing industry creating biofuels for companies like Sunoco energy.

These jobs will not only work to decrease the carbon emissions of the travel industry but will also become staples in a new green economy helping to bolster Americas economic future and energy independence in a world where oil is the only other alternative.

An article in Popular mechanics written in 2007 shed some light on algae fermentation into a biofuel by simplifying the process into cultivating algae in plastic chambers filled with water which periodically have carbon dioxide bubbled through them. When the Algae proliferate it produces a harvestable oil, which can be fermented into ethanol and used in biofuel production.

Not only are we creating a new energy source with this algae solution be we also scrub carbon dioxide and other harmful chemicals out of air though this fermentation process. The hope is that companies such as Fort Collins Colorado based Solix energy will be able to mass-produce this new fuel alongside other fuel production sites such as currently existing power plants still relying on coal.

The off gassing of carbon dioxide from these coal based plants will then be used to spur further production of Algae to make ethanol and reduce the need for corn based ethanol which has already been ruled out as a viable solution do to its detrimental effect on the soil it is grown in (massive nutrient requirement) as well as its consumption of a food source for fuel.

Well as with all my other post its time to rain on everyone’s parade. Some of the major problems facing biofuel are things I have already touched on when looking at other modes of transportation and green fuel sources. Bio fuels like those produced from cooking oil and algae have no existing supply train in order to meet the massive demand for these fuel alternatives. To meet the need companies are developing algae farms and fuel production centers however theses sites beyond the environmental cost of their construction in terms of carbon dioxide emission are all very expensive and unrealistic alternatives to the cheap and relatively plentiful petroleum based fuel sources we already rely on for air travel.

The average cost per gallon of bio fuel is around 17 dollars while traditional jet fuel is only 3. In an article by Mathew Wald in the New York Times the use of these expensive fuel sources is described as “using kobe beef to stretch supplies of hamburger helper”, which is to say overly expensive and illogical to corporations who make their bottom line providing travel options at affordable prices. I can’t imagine the 48,000 people flying are ready to pay significantly more for a service they are already getting for much less especially around the holidays. Sadly until advances are made this is just another feel good story with hope for the future.

So what are some things we as flyers can do to help reduce our carbon foot print. Well a new practice is emerging globally called carbon offset. The basic theory behind carbon offset is that as travelers we can calculate (using online carbon offset calculators) just what the dollar value of our environmental impact is and then use that amount to help fund carbon offset initiatives such as solar collection, wind farms or reforestation efforts.

This isn’t a bad idea if one feels strongly about our impact on the planet but tragically very few travelers have the time, income or awareness to contribute to the carbon offset initiatives. So what doe this leave us all with?

Well with technology ever advancing creating hyper efficient means of air travel coupled with new research into biofuels like algae the hope is that we may one day be able to achieve flight with a minimal or significantly decreased amount of carbon emission. Until this technology rises however we as travelers much accept that its our duty to travel only when necessary and to support carbon offset initiatives when ever travel becomes necessary.

I’m not preaching a non-mobile lifestyle only a more responsible one. The sooner we as a country rally behind these efforts the sooner this technology will rise into actuality and the sooner we can move onto other problems facing the environment. If anything its articles like this that give me hope for a sustainable energy independent future and a stronger America.

Article Sources:

1: Popular Mechanics: Pond Powered bio-fuels turning Algae into Americas new Energy by Amanda Leigh Haag

2: Carolina Live: AAA more people to fly this holiday season by Tracy Vreeland

http://www.carolinalive.com/news/story.aspx?id=689115#.TtVnuRwpJkV

3: About online: Air travel and the environment- climate change and carbon taxes by Arlene Fleming

http://airtravel.about.com/od/safetysecurity/a/earthairtr.htm

4: The Guardian online: Is green travel becoming a reality? By Annabelle Thorpe

http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2008/apr/13/hottopic.carbonemissions

5: Green Upgrader online: On the horizon of green air travel by Live OAK Staff

http://greenupgrader.com/2583/on-the-horizon-of-green-air-travel/

6: The Good Human online: Earth talk is green air travel possible? By Earth Talk Staff

http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2008/04/27/earthtalk-is-green-air-travel-possible/

7: The New York Times: Flying on Chicken Fat by Mathew Wald

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/flying-on-chicken-fat/

8: CNN Online: Airlines experiment with algae and cooking oil powered flights by John D. Sutter

http://whatsnext.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/09/airline-early-adopters-experiment-with-algae-and-oil-powered-flights/?iref=allsearch

Image and Video Sources:

Image1:

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsvShau_UNDDg9G7CMYz73uk1-WopX01KyD4nPRBOgY4HyCyTTZDe3SIjapvUP4AchWk_YJcgVeMELFjpEvzlJaUZoLq2omWjdZVUjoMzjuFKCe-ea6vlbR5oo3LC_jiiJ96MGIU7dlGpO/s1600/Boeing747-8New.jpg

Image2: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/171/394217848_4efecdee44.jpg

Image3: http://media.islandpacket.com/smedia/2010/05/14/17/nws_plane1_0517sub.standalone.prod_affiliate.9.jpg

Image4: http://advancedbiofuelsusa.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Sunoco-Sugarcane-Ethanol.jpg

Image5: http://dailyplanetdispatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/sunoco-biofuel-300x214.jpg

Video1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbLACcUN4fQ

Image6: http://www.think-code.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/green-fuel.jpg

Image7: http://www.globalclimatescam.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/carbon-credit-certificate.gif

Image 8: http://www.greenparenthood.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GreenDeals-website.jpg

Saturday, November 26, 2011

High Speed Rail

Planes, Trains or Automobiles: It’s Time to Pick a Poison

When was the last time you took a train somewhere. Well unless you live in a major city like Washington D.C, New York, London or Paris the chances are that you haven’t been on a train in quite sometime if it all. Ask a child born after 1990 if they have ever traveled by train and the answer is almost always a resounding “nope”, unless they’ve traveled to Europe where High Speed Railways have paved the future of mass transit and significantly cut down the number of people relying on cars and planes to take them to their destination.

So with Europe’s work in high-speed rail and now the United States promise to expand and improve their own rail system what are the advantages of rail travel and transport? Are trains the solution to ecofriendly travel and trade or is this just another dead end in the search for a truly green way to get from A to B.

Trains were first introduced in a large scale to the United States by some very progressive and all be it aggressive businessmen around the turn of the century. While previously the rail systems had been seen as a way to facilitate and sustain westward expansion it soon became clear that this system was a for profit industry and would soon carry products to and from the costs to consumers faster than ever before. One of these products was oil (drilled in Pennsylvania) that was quickly becoming the preferred and powerful fuel of then modern America.

Entrepreneur John. D. Rockefeller ushered in a business practice of receiving secret railroad rebates from the rail companies that transported his oil from Northwest Pennsylvania to consumers nation wide. Rockefeller had a vision of “continuing to hold out with the best illuminator in the world at the lowest price” (The Freeman Online, John. D Rockefeller and the Oil Industry) regardless of the practices it would take to achieve this dream.

This practice not only meant that oil and rail would be tied together for a mutual benefit but also meant that anyone hoping to compete in either the oil or rail road industries had to create their own railroads (Rockefellers deal included exclusive oil transport rights with the railroad he dealt with) to carry their oil to consumers in hopes of competing with Rockefeller. This helped the placement of rail and the expansion of the industry to move very rapidly. But this system would soon be forgotten as highways and cars became the nationwide network for travel and transit.

With railroad largely forgotten with exceptions on the East coast of the U.S it seemed the heyday of rail transport had come and gone. Now as we look for green alternatives to city congestion and highway traffic it seems the railroad may be the solution we always had but couldn’t remember.

Oil seems to be behind just about every environmental problem facing transit and transport. Whether it be trains, planes or cars large amounts of oil are needed. One article by Mark Tutton in CNN online quoted train and climate expert Dr. Anthony Perl on the topic of transit in the U.S who believes that in order for any significant progress in the sector to be made oil “addiction” needs to be broken. While it is easy to see that oil is a major problem this sector will face in the future suggesting that Oil is an addiction would allude that we as consumers have a choice and don’t need to but want to use oil, which is grossly inaccurate.

In fact its startling just how little could be accomplished without oil and other petroleum based fuel sources. The fact is we don’t have a choice currently, no green fuel (ethanol, electric, hydro, solar or wind power) is proficient or abundant enough while being cost effective to replace oil. The sad truth is were stuck with oil for the foreseeable future if we as a society want to continue to function as we do now.

Often we need to cause harm to do good. No great undertaking has ever been accomplished without some sacrifice and I think this is no less true for the problem of green energy and climate change. Every news article seems to paint a picture of the next great world saving technology or fuel and the fact remains that no such silver bullet exists and most of all there is no one solution.

The realistic approach would be to accept that we must first research and build infrastructure to support this new field of green energy and transit while understanding that its going to take work across the board from wind, solar, hydro and ethanol as well as new possibly undiscovered energy sources to meet current demands. Oil was a universal operator in that we could use it to power just about anything but those days are gone and now more than ever we will need to learn to lean of a variety of sources.

Step one especially with high-speed rail isn’t as pretty as one would hope. In fact its one of those situations where harm necessitates healing, and by that I mean its going to get worse before it gets any better. In order for trains to become a viable solution for travelers and distributors it needs to make sense economically. A commute or a company isn’t going to put faith into a system that makes its consumer wait longer or its traveler wait longer.

For high-speed rail this means drastic build up in the number of stations, trains, support facilities and functioning tracks. All of this takes heavy investment as well as a heavy toll on the environment. In order to build these sites and lay new track massive amounts of land will need to be cleared causing further vegetation loss and decreased oxygen levels, additionally large amounts of steel and concrete will be needed in construction which both in their production and implementation (from creating to transport to utilization) cause large amounts of carbon dioxide and other green house gas emission. China has already taken the lead building line and support facilities in excess of 400 billion dollars and over 8,000 new kilometers of track.

Step two is even more of a problem. Once the necessary work and harm has been put in by creating this new industry and new locations we are faced with the fact that most high speed trains are powered by electricity and large amounts to boot. As we know from my previous posts the two largest fuel sources for electricity are coal and natural gas.

While Hydroelectric power, wind and solar only make up 16% of all electric energy produced in the United States. This means that unless major advances in electric production technology and renewable electricity sources are made trains are just as dead in the water as cars and planes.

The next problem is occupancy. We have all heard the lines about car-pooling to save gas and minimize the number of vehicles on the road. Well trains and planes are the ultimate form of car-pooling. Well not exactly, planes are still the worst form of travel from an ecofriendly point of view due mostly to the large distances they travel and heavy fuel usage of take off and landing. So you would expect trains have to be better than both right?

Well they would be if the U.S could get enough people to use this form of travel and transit. High-speed rail in Japan has an average of 75% occupancy on all of their high-speed train routes, which still isn’t enough to offset operating costs and maintenance.

So what are we left with? Well until we invest enough to care about rail it wont ever be a realistic alternative. Additionally electric production needs to become fossil fuel free before powering this transit system is a good environmental option (considering over two thirds of global electricity is produced from coal alone). Well I suppose this is the silver lining. President Obama has already pledge over 50 billion dollars over the next 25 years to bring high-speed rail to over 80% of the U.S populace.

So the hope becomes that should enough research and infrastructure be produced in the next 25 years coupled with better electrical energy sources trains could eventually become a viable option for the future of transit and travel. For now the best thing to do is work to change the populations opinion on train travel by supporting local rail, subway and regional lines so that when large cross country high-speed rail is a reality we as a nation will not only accept it but utilize it on a large scale. Its time to take the hint from Japan and Europe and jump on the high speed rail bandwagon.

Here is a video of Obama talking about High Speed Rail

NEWS SOURCES:

1: CNN Online: How green is high-speed rail by Mark Tutton

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/18/world/how-green-is-hsr/index.html

2: The Huffington Post Online: U.S unveils 53 Billion dollar high speed rail plan by John Lowy and Alan Fram

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/08/us-high-speed-rail-plan_n_820234.html

3: News wise online: U.S High Speed rail initiative is not realistic says transportation expert by Cornell University Contributors

http://www.newswise.com/articles/u-s-high-speed-rail-objective-is-not-realistic-says-transportation-expert

4: The New York Times Online: How Green is High Speed Rail by Green a New York Times Blog

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/how-green-is-rail-travel/

5: The Berkley Transport Letter: Tracking High Speed Rails energy use and emissions by Christine Cosgrove

http://its.berkeley.edu/btl/2010/spring/HRS-life-cycle

IMAGE SOURCE

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Electric Cars?

Electric Cars: Is Going Green Giving Up and is electric a real solution

Electric cars have been on the market for longer than you might imagine, in fact Henry Fords wife Clara was one of the first owners of an all-electric car. Thomas Edison along with his many inventions worked on an electric car in 1899 seeing electricity as the power source of automobiles in the future making it his mission “To create a long lasting, powerful battery for commercial automobiles”. In 1900 electric cars made up 28% of all manufactured vehicles in the United States holding court in cities like New York, Boston, and Chicago. But it would be long before these cars would be forgotten by industry and consumer alike in praise of gasoline powered vehicles (however these vehicles had more efficient electronic starting motors which made them more reliable and attractive to consumers) after a clever invention by Charles Kettering made the hand cranking starting motor of past vehicles an archaic and unnecessary task.

Soon Ford would introduce the Model T and car sales would explode sadly leaving the electric car largely in the dust. So the question remains why have electric cars resurged today? With their resurgence how have they changed and most of all beyond looking green and being cost efficient how good of a solution to climate change are these new forms of an old American inventors dream going to hold up to the tests of the modern age?

Electricity seemingly has no off gassing of harmful chemicals, no waste produced during its use and largely (for the first world) is abundant. Its quiet, efficient and non-fossil fuel based, or so it seems at first glance at a wall outlet. Put all power stems from a source and electricity is no different in fact its fuel source isn’t much better than the fossil fuels used in convention vehicles. The only difference being that electrically powered vehicles have the luxury and illusion of being “green” by removing themselves one step from the process of creating harmful toxins and excess carbon dioxide speeding up climate change and the erosion of the ozone layer.

All electricity in the case of the United States is produced from three main sources the first of which is coal. Coal is a fossil fuel burned to produce usable power and energy however in order to use coal we need to mine it, refine it and ship it to plants where it can be combust into potential electric energy. Coal mining causes horrible environmental impact by clogging streams with the overburden or waste material caused by the primary source of coal in the United States which is a practice known as Mountain Top removal mining. This practice not only decimates beautiful mountains in the Appalachian mountain ranges of West Virginia but also causes the streams these mountains feed with rain run off to be clogged and choked to a trickle by dumping of mining waste into mine sites neighboring valleys and rivers.

The next major fuel source for electrical energy is Natural Gas. Now don’t let the phrase natural dissuade you into believing this fuel source is anymore green. All the natural indicator serves as is a reminder that this fuel like oil was naturally caused by decomposition of long dead plants, animals and organisms however it remains just as detrimental to the environment as other petroleum fuel sources. It is no coincidence that natural gas is the number two Google keyword search after typing “natural” into the search bar as so few people understand just what the fuel is and how we go about acquiring it.

Natural gas still requires drilling and fracturing to be extracted before it can be compressed into a pressurized containment tank for refining or later be turned into a liquid for storage and distribution. Some natural gas wells that are close enough to the areas the fuel will be consumed have the ability to build pipelines into populated areas. This is convenient but also dangerous, as we have seen in cases where natural gas lines leaked into local water sources literally causing drinking water in these areas to become flammable.

The most promising source of electricity is hydroelectric at 6.4% of the total electricity produced in the United States coming from this source. (Additionally nuclear power makes up 19.30%, wind 2.10%, geothermal 0.37% and solar at 0.03%). Hydroelectric power is a process in which water is forced over a turbine causing it to slowly rotate a central metal shaft around which a generator is housed causing a build in static electricity which is stored for distribution to consumers. Hydroelectric power is a source, which after initial building and implementation at a site produces little carbon dioxide waste and no direct waste.

Sadly of all the electrical energy created in the world only 16% is truly renewable and low impact with hydroelectricity accounting for 21% of that small 16%. The hope is that this technology will be better researched for large electrical yield from existing and newly created plants generating more power for less waste and intrusion on the natural environment, as building the dams that house these sites leads to valley flooding and inevitable damage to the plants local ecosystem, which is not to mention that dams aren’t to pretty on the eyes for the average nature observer.

So knowing that electric power production is for the majority as detrimental as oil and other petroleum fuels why is there still an appeal to this “green” vehicle? We’ll for one these vehicles brand their owners as concerned entrepreneurs in the global struggle of climate change. In a world where identity is more than ever linked to the things we consume a car says a lot about a persons politics and opinions. Think hard about the last time you saw a hummer H2 or a Tahoe in the lane next to you. More than likely the things that came to mind were less than pleasant while when we see the Pruis or Volt those assumptions are completely changed.

This phenomenon is even true of relative car size. A long and dark colored Audi A8 (Otherwise called what my dad drives) carries a big and unconcerned vibe (My Dad is actually concerned about climate change but come on who doesn’t want a blacked out A8?) Smaller cars carry a different tone, Mini Coopers and Golf’s even the new fiat say to onlookers that you do your best to drive short distances in an efficient vehicle and that while it still runs on gas it could be worse.

Then by this logic an electric and compact car would have to be the best mix of concerned at intelligent car driver. Wrong. Introducing the Coda all electric compact car simply called the Coda positioned to take on the Nissan leaf and corner the electric car market. Well this is all well and good but environmental problems or not a car cant be purchased purely on its appeal to ideology it comes down to function and style, well in this case maybe just function. You’ll see.

And here she is, inspiring eh

Well the looks department just lost but maybe the amazing functionality of this vehicle will be its saving grace. This new car however unattractive boasts a range of 150 miles over 50 more miles than the Nissan Leaf thanks to a new lithium ion battery pack. This feat was a direct response to a new phobia to the world called “radius anxiety” or the fear of not being able to return from a trip in an electric car due to a low charge with no available charging station. Well this new battery should eliminate that anxiety all together not to mention that the Coda also has developed a technology called “thermal management” which will protect the life of the cars battery in extremely high or low temperatures making this car more appealing to those of us who need a daily driver year round regardless of weather (an all wheel drive option would have been nice for those of us who live in the snow and mountains).

Some other incentive for this kind of vehicle would be government tax credits of up to 7,500 dollars (which may or may not be worth the hassle, think DMV but through the mail it takes even longer). Also for city driving nothing beats the torque and fast pick up of an electrical engine but the harder the work the greater the electrical demand so be careful on those hills and drag races.

So what does it come down to? Well the only advantages I really see in an electric vehicle actually and sadly have little to do with saving the environment but have a great importance in rescuing the American economy (perhaps at the environments cost). By buying into electric cars the American populace pushes the use of American coal and natural gas creating new jobs with increased demand not to mention the creating of charging station instillation and maintenance as a field.

By using American power sources for these new electric cars and charging stations we push the environmental agenda, decrease dependency on foreign oil and make Americas energy future self dependent (want to avoid another OPEC oil crisis of 1979), especially given the current geopolitical climate) until we have time and money to pursue better more sustainable electricity and fuel sources. The use of electric cars will never be a legitimate option to solving or decreasing climate change but at least were making strides in the right direction, and besides we saw some really great cars emerge from this, take a look if you’re a gear head. (Porsche Spyder 918 hybrid electric, Audi Etron, Tesla roadster – a Lotus Elise body with a Tesla engine and the super sexy Fisker Karma.)

Lets hope we figure this electric car and environmental change out soon or it will come as a real shock when cars are a thing of the past, pun intended.

heres a video on hydroelectric power: