 A 2008 report from the UK's Waste and Resources Action Programme found that 6.7 million metric tons of food waste went into landfills each year, resulting in 8 million metric tons of CO2 being emitted. Supermarket chain Sainsbury's no longer wants to be a part of the problem. The company plans to become waste-free by the end of the year, largely by sending their food waste to a biomass plant.
The chain's 28 Scotland stores will send 42 metric tons of waste to a biomass plant outside of Glasgow every week. The company claims that each metric ton of waste can power 500 homes, meaning enough electricity could be produced to power a 50,000-person town. The Scotland stores will begin sending their unsold food this month, with the rest of the stores thoughout the UK joining in by the summer.
Beyond just unsold food, the chain plans to keep all of their waste out of landfills by the end of the year. So far, no specific plan for diverting the non-food waste has been announced.
Biomass tends to get a little less publicity than solar or wind, but it's been a rapidly growing piece of the renewable energy pie. Some parts of the world are better suited for solar than others, but all parts of the world produce waste. I love that a company like Sainsbury's has figured out that their waste could be put to good use. There are many other companies that could be contributing to biomass plants instead of landfills. Let's hope they catch on soon.
via Cleantech
|
 Scientists at the University of Bristol in England have come up with an idea they say could cool the planet by 2 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer: reflective plants. As opposed to large-scale engineering projects that have been proposed to achieve this in the past, planting more reflective crops would take advantage of a global system already in place (agriculture) and its potential can be proved in less risky and expensive ways than say, a huge sunshade erected in space.
The scientists are not proposing changes in which crops are planted since shifts could cause major disruptions in available food and to the land they're planted on. They suggest instead that existing crops be bred or genetically engineered to be more reflective by changing the waxiness and arrangement of their leaves, among other things.
The plan isn't foolproof obviously. The cooling would only occur in areas with large amounts of arable land, meaning central North America and a band across Europe and Asia would see cooling effects, while the Southern hemisphere would see far less benefits. The other drawback is the time it would take to engineer crops for reflectivity and then to implement the new versions globally.
I think it's a more realistic idea for global cooling than others that have been suggested, but it's still not a real solution. I'm not completely discounting it. I'm sure some good could come from planting crops in a more thoughtful way, but I'm still convinced that the only way to really turn this crisis around is through a major reduction in the use of fossil fuels and a dramatic change in how we use energy. Ideas like this excite me because they prove how inventive we can be, but I'm not sure there will ever be an easy solution.
via NY Times
 A new bill introduced in the Senate this month is being called the "Cash for Clunkers" program. It would offer drivers a $4,500 voucher for turning in their gas-guzzling cars for more fuel-efficient ones.
It seems simple, but there are a few requirements that a driver would have to meet in order to cash in. The vehicle being traded in must be drivable and have a fuel-economy rating of less than 18 miles per gallon. The new car must exceed federal fuel economy targets for its vehicle class by 25 percent, must cost less than $45,000 and be a 2004 model or later.
While this is a good idea in theory, there would be easy ways to take advantage of this program without actually making a dramatic improvement in fuel efficiency. Someone could trade in their old car for a truck or SUV that is considered fuel efficient for its class, but doesn't actually improve the drivers overall fuel performance. The senators backing this bill claim that this program could save 40,000 to 80,000 barrels of oil a day in four years. I think that this type of program is the right kind of idea - one that aims to help people across the country reduce their fuel consumption, but I think they could do better. There aren't high hopes for this bill to pass, but I hope to see something bigger and more effective pass soon.
via GoodCleanTech
|
 Recently, the British Royal Navy made an interesting discovery off the coast of Antarctica. The melting icebergs were releasing iron into the ocean, which in turn lead to large blooms of carbon-absorbing algae. Once the algae were full of CO2, they would sink into the ocean, taking the CO2 with them. Basically, a natural form of carbon sequestration was happening, as though the earth was trying to stabilize itself.
Now scientists want to see if they can ramp up this natural sequestration by fertilizing the ocean off of South Georgia Island with several tons of iron sulfate, hopefully creating even larger algae blooms and even greater absorption of CO2. The real test is whether the algae sinks far enough (at least two miles) to actually keep the CO2 out of the atmosphere and if so, if it stays underwater long enough to slow down global warming.
If it does work, scientists think iron fertilization could slow global warming enough for us to make the changes to stop it in its tracks. Because the process was already happening naturally, scientists have been able to make sure aquatic life isn't affected by the increase in iron.
While I think the idea of the earth "wanting to save us" as one scientist put it, is an incredibly romantic notion, I do think that if the planet already has an effective system in place, it's a good idea to go with it. In some ways, this idea is as logical as saying, "trees absorb CO2, so let's plant a lot more trees." Yes, carbon sequestration is still on shaky ground, but this could be a real true test of its potential. The algae is just doing its job. Now we just need to observe.
via Treehugger
 Exxon is not known for being a friend to the environment, but for the past couple of decades they have been researching and implementing carbon capture and storage technology. Now, they're investing $170 million towards furthering what they've already accomplished.
The oil company will spend $70 million on a project to capture six million metric tons of emissions per year at their La Barge, Wyo. natural gas plant, two million more tons than they are already capturing every year. Another $100 million will be spent testing new technologies for removing carbon from natural gas by 2010.
Now this doesn't make them heroes. They still do enough damage to negate the good and carbon capture and storage is still controversial, but this does put them way ahead of other companies who will be clamoring for the same technology if the new administration puts a price on carbon emissions. Also, they could spend more. This is Exxon. If they wanted to invest in capturing all of the emissions they produce, they probably have the money to do it. But ultimately, if carbon capture and storage turns out to be truly viable, their research could end up helping in the fight against climate change.
via Earth2Tech
|
|
|
|
Start Prev 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next End
|
|
Page 18 of 35 |
