? ??????????????Green Fumes? ????? ?? ???Rating: 4.3 (215 Ratings)??18 Grabs Today. 61258 Total Grabs. ???
???Preview?? | ??Get the Code?? ?? ?????Pop Your Bubble? ????? ?? ???Rating: 4.0 (3 Ratings)??12 Grabs Today. 2961 Total Grabs. ??????Preview?? | ??Get the Code?? ?? ???????Jordan BLOGGER TEMPLATES - TWITTER BACKGROUNDS ?

Friday, July 29, 2011

Can't people just be honest?!

I have a real problem with companies trying to get plants built to make a buck, while misleading the public. Why can't people just be honest?!
My rant comes from reading about coal. Oh, for the love of coal. In the US 40% of our electricity comes from coal. As in, it gets pulverized, burned, steam is created and turbines turned, and you can turn the light on in your house. Coal is cheap and plentiful in the US. Really plentiful, pretty cheap, compared to other sources. However, coal has a few drawbacks. It's dirty, really dirty, contains mercury, sulfur, among other stuff. And when it's burned it creates carbon dioxide. yes, that would be the most famous greenhouse gas. The one causing climate change. (not global warming!) The burning of coal also creates a large need for water. a HUGE need for water. Actually power creation in general uses a lot of water, but since the use of coal creates a large amount of electricity... you see my correlation there? So, dirty + water consumption = not the best option for increasing energy demands. So electric companies have looked into newer more efficient means of using coal. There are a few kinds that have shown up on the radar. IGCC, and supercritical are two of the main types that are being scaled up to large power plants. The promotional "guys" say these two types are the next big thing, and will be great and great jobs, reduce emissions, create more energy from less coal, use less water... etc, etc. Okay, I'll give them that, these two technologies do have those capabilities. eventually. However, at the moment, lots more money needs to be spent on the testing and refining of the technology. And that is where I get annoyed with people being dishonest. It's going to cost money to get these technologies to be as efficient as they can be, meanwhile, the companies are saying it will only be a "few" more dollars than what is being spent now to build coal fired power plants. HA. right. We are talking millions of dollars, and that's on the low end.
I understand where they are coming from. Americans are cheap. seriously, we are. Cheap, cheap, cheap. We don't want to pay anymore than what we have been paying for the same stuff. So companies try to hide the fact that new technology is going cost more. Nevermind that the technology will save us in the long run. This whole instant gratification thing creates a large problem when it comes to technology, and improving the environment by improving power sources.
So, we need to SUCK IT UP!! If the human race wants to have trees, grass, blue sky, etc. we are going to have to figure out how to use what we have more efficiently and it's going to cost money, and lots of it. I guess it comes down to whether everyone is willing to pay to breath fresh air.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Solar arrays

I was working on a project today for work and a picture came across my desk that showed a corporation in Ohio, of all places, with a solar array over part of their parking lot. I was seriously impressed. If anyone knows anything about Ohio, well, lets just say there are sunnier places in the U.S. Although it is near Cincinnati, so it gets more sun than say Northern Ohio. Anyway. Facts are, there is winter, & spring, both of which aren't very sunny. On average in Milford, Ohio, where the corporation is located, has about 182 sunny days a year, not bad. But when compared to Phoenix, AZ at 212, and Yuma, AZ at 242, and Las Vegas at 210 days, well, Ohio just isn't that sunny. Okay, you ask why am I beating the dead horse about Ohio not being sunny. Wellllll, let me explain. About 2 years ago there was an article in Scientific America, or maybe Discover, not sure, one of those science magazines that proposed a HUGE solar array in the middle of the desert in the southwest U.S. Uh, okay. there logic was there was ALLLL this wasted space since there was nothing there but the desert. um, ya, okay. They didn't take into account the little things that may live there, the animals that might migrate through there or the weather pattern change that might occur if they put their 65 acre solar array thing in. I can't remember how many acres they were proposing, but it was something insane, like 100's of acres. Hmm, maybe I should do a little research and refind that article. Maybe later. Anyway. This article got me thinking, why not put solar arrays on parking lots?! I mean, the southwest is a hot, sunny place, and ALLLL these parking lots are uncovered. People park, go in, and come back out to a scorching hot car seat. ouch! So instead of using pristine desert that might actually have a real environmental purpose, why don't we use areas that we have already destroyed by paving. hmmmmmm? Wouldn't that be better? Making something good out of something that causes nothing but environmental damage? (don't even get me started about parking lots!!) I think it's a pretty good idea, and it creates a shaded area for cars, so shoppers don't have to come out to a hot car seat. seriously! I mean, if a company can do it in Southwest Ohio, and get some benefit out of it, can you imagine what benefit we'd reap from putting them on parking lots in the southwest U.S.? It might even help alleviate the heat sink (I don't think so, but ya never know). People need to start coming up with more creative alternatives to use what we have, instead of destroying more virgin land. uh, duh!