Algae as a potential alternative fuel?

Is bio-diesel from algae more feasible and more environmentally friendly than bio-diesel from other agricultural crops such as soybeans or sunflower plants? Some have claimed that using agricultural crops as bio-diesel would result in a diversion of 60% of crops to produce only 5% of the total diesel consumption of the United States; illustrating that this would not be a very practical plan. Furthermore, the amount of energy put into converting and creating energy from crops is more than the energy that is generated. Some specific examples of such are that “soybean requires 57% more fossil energy than is produced and sunflower plants require 118% more than is produced.” So essentially there is no benefit to bio-diesel.

The new claim is that algae are a good alternative for biodiesel and some go as far as to claim that it can entirely replace petroleum-based transportation fuel in the United States. This is partly due to the simplicity of the nature of algae. Unlike other plants it lacks many structures and organs found in terrestrial plants. They also reproduce themselves. Also some algae species are oil rich so the amount of oil that can be collected from algae is a lot greater (15 times more) than other biodiesel plants such as soybeans. Another factor that makes algae more environmentally friendly is that it doesn’t take up as much space as terrestrial plants therefore it does not disturb ecosystems as much. Also algae are very adaptable and can grow in a variety of environments: salt water, freshwater, even contaminated water.

Because algae has such versatile living conditions some people are planning on having algae grow in abandoned mine sites testing “the notion that sunlight might be optional”. The idea of growing algae in abandoned mines requires LEDs to be placed and turned on in short intervals to provide the algae enough light to produce lipids or oils for fuel. The benefit of having algae grow in abandoned mines is that mining companies wouldn’t have to pay for reclamation and unlike outdoor ponds it wouldn’t have to deal with issues of evaporation, fluctuating temperatures, and contamination. However, the major caveat to this idea is that LEDs are expensive and there is uncertainty of whether or not the full cost of growing and producing the algae energy is less than the produced energy.

NASA has a completely different idea of where to grow algae and the environmental benefits of it. NASA wants to use algae as a way to treat waste water and create a bio-fuel at the same time. They have tested this idea in laboratories, but there are still some logistical issues that must be figured out. In the future NASA wants to have this process done at sea. So the major issue is how to scale the concept up and deal with the stochastic events at sea.

Although there are different ideas of how to use algae to benefit the environment there are still many issues that need to be figured out. I think that these ideas and concepts are really interesting and germane to today’s world due to global climate change and a potential solution to the United States dependence on foreign sources of oil; however, I feel like this could potentially lead to an unintended environmental consequence in the long run. For example if algae became really successful and feasible algae might become an invasive species and disrupt some ecosystems. This issue is rather new so there is much scientific uncertainty with a lot of the consequences and benefits of the process.

Toronto's Green Roof Bylaw

In late May of this year, the City Council of Toronto passed a law mandating that all new development above 2,000m² of Gross Floor Area be equipped with a green roof. The law will apply to new building permit applications submitted after January 31st, 2010 for residential, commercial, and institutional buildings, whereas the cut off is January 31st, 2011 for industrial development. This mandate is the first of its kind in North America, and will likely serve as a precedent for more to come. The issue is important and relevant because it is an example of government using its direct regulatory power to instate environmental improvement as opposed to market based approaches.

Toronto’s Green Roof Bylaw specifies a certain percentage of the rooftop required to be “green” in relation to the size of the building. For a building with a Gross Floor Area of 2,000 – 4,999 m2, the amount of available roof space should be 20% covered by greenery. Similarly, a GFA of 5,000-9,999 m2 constitutes a green coverage of 30%, and so on. Not surprisingly, developers are unhappy about this law because estimates show that this requirement has the potential to add upwards of $150,000 to building projects. Nevertheless, the long term monetary and environmental benefits outweigh this one time cost, making it fairly cost-effective.

This mandate is a great step in the right direction for two important reasons. First, green roofs offer many benefits to the environment, such as reducing rainwater runoff, filtering heavy metals out of rainwater, and vast energy savings. Green roofs reduce heating needs by adding mass and thermal resistance value, as well as cooling needs by evaporative cooling. In addition, if they are glassed in, green roofs can act as passive solar heat reservoirs and can reduce the city’s average temperature during the summer. Second, this mandate shows to the public governmental efforts to move towards more sustainable living. The idea of living sustainably should be solidified into the minds of the public so that we can learn to incorporate environmental consciousness into our lifestyles. In this regard, the green roof mandate is a step in the right direction as it will increase awareness of environmental issues as well as what is being done to address them.

World Population

The world population crisis is arguably THE greatest threat to planet Earth and the survival of humanity. The world population rate grew steadily until the industrial revolution took place and then growth became exponential. World population reached a billion around 1800 CE and has since grown close to seven times that in about 200 years. As the current population total nears 7 billion, life on earth is becoming increasingly unsustainable.

Effects of population growth are amplified with current lifestyle methods that neglect many of the environmental consequences and focus too much on economic gain. As the world population has risen, natural resources have fallen. The U.S. holds 20% of the world's population, but consumes 70% of the world's resources. Meanwhile, these resources extracted come heavily from poor, developing countries. Who are we as a country to rob and exploit lands that are not our own? These poor countries remain poor as their precious resources deplete at an increasing rate. At the rates in which the world consumes, how can we let our population grow. 80% of the planet's rainforests have been cleared since 1950. This is all due to growth of population which heavily increases demand for paper, wood, and open land for housing and development. With this rapid clearing of trees, global warming has been allowed to surface as the source of carbon sequestration diminishes.

With an increase in population, also comes an increasing demand for energy. Coal, oil and natural gases use increases as people do. These are sources of energy damage the environment enormously, but however, they are the most popular sources. As population increases these effects are drastically rising. Global warming is given life with these methods. We need to change our sources of energy use to environmentally friendly, renewable sources such as solar and wind.

As population increases at the dramatic rate that it currently is, planet Earth needs to change to meet these needs and sustain the planet. One such way is to halt population growth. The education of women is an extremely effective way to do this. Women that are more educated, tend to have less children then uneducated women. Overconsumption from powers such as the U.S. needs to stop as resources deplete at more rapid rates, and growing populations need an increasing chunk of the world's resources. Also, more renewable forms of energy use need to be employed as current popular types pollute and deplete due to the human population explosion. To achieve these things will be a difficult task. We will need to as a world increase awareness of these issues and demand for our world leaders to change the world in a way that can sustain planet Earth and humanity.

CBF Headquarters

In an environmental science course I took at the community college in my hometown, we studied many environmental issues and policies, but what was really interesting to me was our trip to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s headquarters. It is called The Philip Merrill Center, and is one of the world’s most energy efficient buildings. It incorporates green architecture and recycled materials throughout the building to make it so energy efficient. It was the first building to receive the U.S Green Building Council’s Platinum rating for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). I believe more buildings, houses, and developments should strive to make their buildings more green and energy efficient.

Energy consumption and the United States depleting resources is obviously a very big problem in America today, so having new buildings built more sustainable and energy efficient could be the first step to aid this problem. The CBF’s building uses technologies like geothermal wells under the parking lot, natural ventilation through windows, solar power through photo voltaic panels, insulated panels, composting toilets, and more. When I visited the headquarters, they even purchased Toyota Prius cars so if someone had to leave the office, they could drive the Prius to save gas.

I believe new buildings should be required to have at least some green features in its structure. The benefits of a green building are not only sustainability, but it saves money in energy costs. For example, the building uses 56% less energy, saving $100,000. There energy use is 60% less than other buildings, and uses 94% less water than a conventional building.

All in all, green buildings and architecture along with recycled material and other technologies make the Philip Merrill Center not only energy efficient, but a very interesting building. More buildings should adapt to the changing times and should be required to incorporate green architecture and technologies into their structures.

-Alexandra Athans

Geothermal Heating

Geothermal heating systems in the United States have not been made marketable in recent years. Common citizens have not obtained the knowledge on how a geothermal heat pump could be profitable for your bank account or for the environment. By explaining how a geothermal heat pump works, the cost effectiveness of such systems, and how this energy production can be beneficial to the environment, I believe you will see the reasons for a move to geothermal energy.

Geothermal heating pumps work the same way an air-conditioner works. These "split systems" transfer heat from the ground to the inside of your home. A coil in a condenser located in the ground warms water with the heat in the ground, moves it to an evaporator coil inside your home where the heat exchanger moves the warmth to your air ducts. All GHPs contain a heat exchanger, which can heat or cool or even heat water. Increasing the energy savings can simply be done with added fans and a two-speed compressor. A dual source heat pump would combine a standard system and a geothermal pump at a less expensive price.

Now that you know how geothermal heating systems run, I can explain the cost-effectiveness of geothermal energy. When comparing a GHP to a gas-fired furnace a GHP will be most expensive in the initial cost. Although a typical residential system would cost around $7500, the energy savings can range fro 30%-60% (depending on climate factors). These energy savings are related to a much more efficient heating system. Geothermal heaters require much less space than a traditional system. A consumer can create a new or retrofit their old heater for a condensed system. One may be able to use heat from the ground to heat or cool many parts of their home including the temperature and water. The majority of the parts of a GHP are insured at least for 25 years, due to the parts being protected by the cover of your home and also depends on the stability of your land. These benefits are very important to the survival of geothermal energy in the US market.

Incentives exist for consumers wanting a change in how they receive their energy. These motives include tax credits and discounts to consumers purchasing these GHPs. Although most incentives require entirely new systems, they offer immense discounts. In Virginia, Dominion Power allows qualifying ENERGY STAR homes to procure discounts. 2008 ENERGY STAR homes in Virginia allocate for saving 1,932,528 lbs. of coal.

These reasons stated above assist my viewpoint for geothermal energy. The explanation of how the GHPs work show the efficiency of new systems. Saving money through more efficient ways of producing energy will be profitable in the long run. This will also assist the environmentally conscious public, with incentives to those willing to make the change.

Natural Gas Drilling in the New York City Watershed

The recent push by the Chesapeake Energy Corporation to begin natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale has put New York City on its toes. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation released a draft environmental review that proposed laws and guidelines for drilling after 18 months of research. The city particularly concerned with the contamination of their drinking water supply because the drilling is proposed in the NYC watershed.

Despite the fact that the majority of the concerns are addressed in the environmental review, many city residents and officials remain concerned with the proposition, many because New York City is one of only four major cities that is allowed by the EPA to not filter their drinking water. The city's water is from upstate New York, and if the EPA was to take away the special permit, the city would have to build over $10 billion worth of water treatment plants. Another problem that would be amplified by the drilling would be that the large amounts of wastewater produced have no treatment facility in the region and would have to be exported to another state. More recently, Chesapeake Energy announced that they will not pursue drilling within the New York watershed, due to pressure from environmentalists and the city. However, the pursuit of drilling for oil and natural gas within watersheds of other regions continues. Should the instance of the New York drilling serve as a form of precedent for other drilling proposals?

Drilling for natural gas within the United States has become a controversial topic, but drilling in an area affecting the drinking water supply of one of the nation's largest cities is a whole different matter. The side advocating for the drilling pushes the importance of America's energy crisis, but is the energy harvested worth the health and livelihoods of over 8 million people?

Some argue that there are plenty of protective measures that would be taken to protect the water quality and the gas found would supply the entire nations' energy supply for two years. Two years of energy for the entire country is quite a find, but it would be better if instead of spending more money on drilling for gas, we put policy and legislation into place to reduce the amount of energy consumed nationwide. Now that the issue of this particular proposition is in the grave, the question remains if this instance will count as precedent for other initiatives. I hope that the retaliation by New York City proves to permitters and the government that citizens don't want this kind of damaging energy harvesting - they want viable, long-term options.