Office Recycling

Image via Wikipedia

 I have said here before that I believe that climate changes are regulated much more heavily by natural forces than by things we do.  While I do not agree with the government trying to impose things like cap and trade that will hurt the economy, I do think it is important to try to conserve our resources.  I am all for recycling and trying to have more energy efficient cars and appliances.

The company I work for has a number of sustainability initiatives.  It is one of the reasons that I like working for them.  Throughout our building we have segregated receptacles for paper, cans & bottles, and garbage that can't be recycled.  Under each of our desks we had a waste basket and a recycling bin for paper.  Our pantry area has cups made from recycled paper. We even try to have products in our stores that emphasize sustainability and we have efforts to reduce packaging waste with our suppliers.  

This week, they added som,ething to our office sustainability initiatives that I am not sure will work out very well.  The concept itself is OK, it is just the execution that I feel is somewhat lacking.  As I said, we have had a blue recycling bin along with a waste basket under our desks.  This week, they removed the waste basket from under our desk and added two small bins that fit inside our blue recycling bin, one bin for cans and bottles and one for garbage.

Image via Wikipedia

I like the idea of adding the small bin for cans and bottles.  It makes it easier to recycle if I have a soda at my desk.  The bin for the garbage, not so much.  It is about 1/8 the size of the previous waste basket.  Since I usually filled about 1/3 to 1/2 of my old waste basket on a given day, it does not take long for the mini bin to get full. A cup of coffee and an energy bar wrapper and that bin is already starting to overflow.  We have a couple larger trash cans in the pantry areas of our floor, but they fill up fairly quickly.  I imagine that they will fill up much quicker with each desk having smaller individual trash bins.

I think a better idea would have been to keep the individual waste baskets and to add the bin for the cans and bottles to the existing recycling bin.  I confess that on those times when I have a soda at my desk that I usually would place it in the waste basket rather than find a can and bottle receptacle elsewhere on the floor, so that extra bin come in handy.

Related articles

• Green Habits that Cost Nothing (talkingaboutgreen.com)
• Zero Waste (arinweitzman.wordpress.com)
• Put your recycling routine on steroids (goerie.com)

The Electric Car Part Deaux

Image via WikipediaLast month, I posted my thoughts regarding The Electric Car.  While I am not necessarily opposed to the idea of the electric car, I did question the benefits of the car in terms of the benefit that is most touted; that of zero carbon dioxide emissions.  I wondered whether or not the zero emissions of the vehicle would be countered by the increased emissions in higher demand for electricity to recharge the car.

Monday afternoon, while driving home from work and listening to The Mark Levin Show, Levin highlighted a story that gave the answer to my pondering.  Levin read directly from the Yid with Lid blog the results of a study conducted by Britain's Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership which is funded jointly by the British government and the car industry.

You can read the entire analysis at The Lid, but the gist of the article is this; by the time you add in the entire production and operation of the electric vehicle will emit more carbon dioxide than a similar sized gasoline powered vehicle.  The increased emissions come primarily from the increased demand for electricity and the production and disposal of the batteries used in electric cars.

Normally I take published studies with a grain of salt. So often, the data is manipulated to get the desired results by those who sponsored the study.  However, with a group such as the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership conduction the study, one would think that they would have a vested interest in producing a study with the opposite results. 

As I said in my original post on the subject, I tend to be a big picture kind of guy.  Unfortunately those that are pushing the green agenda will continue to only see one side of the equation and not the whole picture.  They will continue to push the virtues of the electric car in spite of the evidence that it really isn't going to accomplish what they claim it will.

Related articles

• Surprise! Yet another green myth up in smoke (virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com)
• British Study: Electric Cars Not So Green (michellemalkin.com)
• "Fail: Electric cars could produce higher emissions over their lifetimes than petrol equivalents" and related posts (thenewspundit.com)

Solar Power: Cheap and Green?

Image via WikipediaMy commute to and from work each day is at least an hour each way.  On Friday and Saturday nights, I deliver pizzas.  On average, I probably spend about 20 hours a week in my car with the radio on.  During that time, I get to hear a lot of radio commercials.

One commercial that I have heard frequently that caught my attention was one from a company called Solar City.  They are a company that offers to install solar panels to your home or business.  The commercial advertises that they will help you save on your electricity bill with as little as zero down with their solar lease.

Let me restate here my position on anthropomorphic global warming.  I believe that the vast majority of climate change occurs as a natural phenomenon.  Any man made contribution to that change is miniscule.  Attempts to try to reverse climate change would be unnecessarily expensive and essentially futile.

That being said, I do believe that conserving our natural resources is a good thing, providing that the effort to do so is not too expensive or overly inconvenient. Take for example CFL light bulbs. Due to the mercury in them they create a potential hazard if thrown in the garbage, however, I would guess that most people do just that.  Plus they are a lot more expensive than incandescent bulbs.

Anyway, back to Solar City.  On their website, they have a solar calculator so you can see how much money you could save on your electric bill by having one of their systems installed.  You input your address and info on your home, and they give you four different scenarios.  Since I am all for saving a little cash, and not averse to conservation, I decided to check them out.

If I went with their zero down option, my monthly bill (combined electric bill and lease) would go up $33 per month and my total expense over 20 years go up nearly $11000.  The next option would be to put a $3600 down payment on a system.  My total monthly bill would still go up in the near term.  Assuming that electricity rates rise according to the scenario of their calculator, I would not start saving on my electric bill five or six years.

They also offer a scenario of putting down $11000 or purchasing a system outright for $24000.  If I purchased a system outright, my electric bill would go down about $70 per month, but it would take nearly 30 years for me to recoup my initial investment.  Since I look at things from a cost vs value perspective, none of their programs would be for me.

Solar energy is often touted as being good for the environment.  Once the panels are installed, that would definitely be the case.  However, the manufacture and disposal of solar panels is another matter entirely.  They are manufactured with toxic heavy metals and gases, some of which are carcinogenic and poisonous.  Their lifespan is usually 20-30 years, and once they are no longer operable would need to be disposed of in special toxic waste dumps.  So much for green.

I actually used the Solar City calculator a couple months ago.  At that time, the calculator said that I would save about $15 per month under the zero down scenario.  I guess that since then, the various tax incentives that were available at that time had expired because the calculator did not show any savings for those incentives as it did the first time I checked them out. 

   

The Electric Car

Image via WikipediaI tend to be a big picture kind of guy. My thought processes often involve "if-then" scenarios. I like to think through the possible results or reactions to decisions or events. On performance reviews I have been told that I think in systemic terms.

Let's take for example the electric car. Proponents of the electric car tout it as a zero carbon dioxide emissions vehicle that will lessen our reliance on oil. That much is true, but I like to think of the whole and not the part.

The current President is a big advocate of electric cars.  He frequently espouses the potential benefits of the electric car, especially when he talks about the price of gasoline.  However, this is the same person who famously stated that under his plan electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket.  How would you like to recharge everyday under that scenario?

The other thing that I like to think about is concept of unintended consequences.  The idea behind the electric car is that they have zero emissions for carbon dioxide. The thing about electric cars is that you have to recharge them regularly.  The majority of electricity in this country still comes from coal, and the Department of Energy expects that it will for the foreseeable future.  So, while driving an electric car would reduce CO2 emissions while driving, there would be an increase from increased use of electricity.

I am currently reading a book by Larry Bell called the Climate of Corruption that takes a look at the politics of climate change.  One of the things that he addresses in the book is the actual potential of some of the potential "renewable" energy sources out there.  Most hold precious little potential for being able to provide us with the majority of our electrical needs.  Bell makes the case for increased use of nuclear power for electricity.

I am not averse to the idea of an electric car.  I believe that eventually the technology of electric cars will get to the point where you will be able to travel as far on a single charge as on a tank of gas.  It just strikes me as ironic that the very benefit of the reduced emissions of the electric car are countered by the increased emissions of the electric power plant.

Related articles

• Major slump in electric car sales (autonetinsurance.co.uk)
• Electric cars: zero emissions and zero charm (telegraph.co.uk)
• 'Too few' electric car charge points (bbc.co.uk)

BP Boycotts

Image by Rusty Boxcars via Flickr

I understand the anger of folks with BP regarding the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  There is no telling what the total impact will be on the environment and economy of the region.  The pictures of oil covered pelicans and other wildlife is heart wrenching to say the least.

I am not here to be an apologist for BP.  They should be held accountable for the devastation taking place in the Gulf right now.  If it turns out that BP was criminally negligent, as opposed to this just being a horrible accident,  then appropriate punishments should be meted out.  Having said all that, the call to boycott BP will hurt small business more than it will hurt BP.

The vast majority of gas stations that carry the BP banner are not owned and operated by BP, but by independent operators.  Most of the big oil companies are out of the gasoline retailing business.  For every BP or Exxon station you encounter, you are most likely dealing with a local business and not Big Oil.

Jonathan Berr wrote a piece for AOL's Daily Finance page regarding how the boycott of BP hurts small business and not BP.  He quotes Jay Ricker who owns a chain of convenience stores in Ohio that operate under the BP banner.  Ricker is also president of the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS).  NACS members account for 80% of the gasoline sold in the US, and 56% of the gasoline sold is from operators that own one store.  Unfortunately for those operating under the BP banners, they have contracts that prohibit them from changing banners.  Those are the folks who are hurt by a BP boycott.

I have been, and continue to support drilling for oil, this disaster not withstanding.  Historically, our drilling has been remarkably free of spills.  Our political leaders continue to talk about weaning ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil.  One way to reduce that dependency is through utilizing our own resources.  Until alternative energy sources are commercially viable, oil continues to be the energy source that drives the economy. 

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Misdirected BP Boycott (bucks.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Jillette Mocks BP Boycott Try: 'Oh No, Now They're Boycotting us on Facebook' (newsbusters.org)
• Boycott BP? That Hurts Station Owners -- Not the Company (dailyfinance.com)
• The "Boycott BP" Movement: Foolish, Counterproductive, And Pointless (outsidethebeltway.com)

I Need a Good Laugh

I am in a not so happy place the last couple days.  If you are a regular reader, then you know that I work a part time job delivering pizzas.  Even with that extra money coming in, it seems like every time I get a little extra cash on hand, something comes up.  The latest things to come up for us is an unexpectedly high water bill.  On top of that, the electric company recently changed the meters in my neighborhood because there was a defect in the old meters causing them to register less electricity used.  Consequently, we are being billed about double for our electric bill.

On the part time job front, we had an incident last night that makes me wonder how long I can continue to deliver pizzas.  One of the other drivers was robbed when leaving a delivery.  Some guys came up to him and stuck a gun to his chest and demanded all his money.  Fortunately he was not harmed.  After an incident like that, one stops to consider if it is worth it to continue doing it for the extra few dollars it brings in each month.  I have never wanted to own a gun, but now I wonder.  I definitely need to find something to bring in more cash.

So, being in a not so happy place, I felt the need to add some funnies to today's post.  I thought this was kind of cute.

Next time you think you have had a bad day, think about this guy.


I saw this item in the international food section of the grocery store today.  Some things don't translate well into English.

I saw this one over on SpicyBugz World.  I need one for men.

Of course, I have to add this Nate Beeler cartoon from Friday to have something a little political.

For Energy Independence

I believe in the goal to be energy independent and to end or reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  I am all for developing new clean energy sources, but until the infrastructure is there, we need to use every available domestic source.  It is folly to rely on oil from Middle Eastern countries that hate us and our way of life.  Below is an email I received from American Solutions encouraging people to let the Department of Interior know your opinion about our energy policies.  The link in the letter takes you to their page where you can submit a pre-written message to the Department of Interior or you can edit to send your own message.  Please take a few minutes to let them know that you support domestic production of oil and natural gas.

Dear Dick, If you care about making sure we're not dependent on foreign countries for our energy, we have a very timely call to action that will take you less than 1 minute. The Department of Interior, which decides when and where we drill for oil and gas, has been holding a "notice and comment" period. This is when they solicit input from the public as to whether we should drill or not. This is one way that the anti-energy interest groups have been able to successfully block any common sense development for decades. Well the deadline for submissions is on Monday, and we need your help to overwhelm the Interior Department with comments in favor of drilling. Please take 1 minute to submit your comments right now at YourEnergyOpinion.com. If you don't have time to write anything, don't worry. We've already taken care of it for you. Once you submit your comment, please forward YourEnergyOpinion.com to anyone else that you think would be willing to help out.   This is an opportunity that we must seize.   Thanks so much for your participation, and we'll report back soon as to how we all do. Sincerely, Dan Varroney Senior VP & COO American Solutions

Related articles by Zemanta

• Time for Virginia to Drill, Baby, Drill (usnews.com)
• Obama's Upside-Down Energy Logic (financegeek.com)
• A big win for oil companies (financialpost.com)

Pee Power

Image by dannyman via Flickr

We all know that we should get off of our addiction to foreign oil. The question is what will be the form of energy to get us there, particularly when it comes to our transportation needs. There are a lot of alternative energy vehicles in development, but the infrastructure and cost structure just isn't there yet.

Ethanol made from plant sources has been touted as an alternative to gasoline. Most of the ethanol in the US is derived from corn. It is currently being blended with gasoline and the push is on to increase the amount of ethanol in the blend. However, ethanol is not as efficient a fuel as pure gasoline, and increased ethanol content could damage vehicles. Plus, taking so much food out of the food chain will lead to higher food prices.

T. Boone Pickens is a big proponent of "peak oil." He believes that the world as a whole will be entering a period of declining oil production. He is heavily invested in energy companies, traditional and alternative, and is a big proponent of natural gas to power vehicles. The technology is there, but widespread infrastructure is not. According to Pickens, natural gas vehicles are 25% cleaner than traditional gasoline and will be a good bridge until electric or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are viable.

Electric cars seem to be where the biggest push is currently. The problem with electric cars is that they just don't have the range yet. Plus you have to use traditional electrical power to charge them. Since most electricity is still derived from fossil fuels, you have the trade off of lower car emissions but increased emissions from electrical plants.

Hydrogen fuel cells were getting a lot of attention just a few years ago. Hydrogen powered vehicles would emit water vapor as it's only emission. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has cut off funding for the development of hydrogen fuel cell technology. One of the drawbacks to hydrogen is that it is usually attached to other molecules and is fairly expensive to isolate.

Now word has come out of the University of Ohio that a catalyst has been developed that will break hydrogen molecules out of urine rather easily and cheaply. Professor Geraldine Botte say that in theory, a pee powered car could get 90 mpg. Some speculate that this breakthrough could bring the potential of the hydrogen fuel cell back into the realm of possibility.

One thing for sure, urine is definitely a renewable resource. Since the average human produces about 1.5 liters of urine a day, that would be a little less than half a gallon. Since I have a 60 mile round trip commute each way, I would not be able to produce enough urine each day to make the round trip. We would obviously need to have refueling stations. Though, I imagine that if I was running a little short of fuel that I could add enough to the tank to get me where I needed. Which also begs the question, would guys have an unfair advantage over women in topping off the tank?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Electric Cars Are Coming! Hydrogen...Maybe Not So Much (blogs.thecarconnection.com)
• Our Hydrogen Future is in the Past (ecogeek.org)
• T Boone Picken's - Energy Plan (dummidumbwit.wordpress.com)
• New Technology Produces Hydrogen from Urine (huffingtonpost.com)