World Water Day 2021 in Review

 World Water Day 2021 (in the rear-view mirror): Valuing Water.

World Water Day (March 22, 2021) is past (www.WorldWaterDay.org)...   By now you should have taken the Water Day Quiz at SustainZine. It’s been about 10 years since I developed such a quiz. I had to work to improve and update the original quiz… It is still tricky to get good answers to some of these water-critical issues. Often the water usage is available to the homeowner, but gets confusing as the data is aggregated for the state and for the nation. The more abstract uses of water, like virtual water, are erratic and imprecise. Important concepts, but the answers are fuzzy.

World Water Day: 2021 Valuing Water (Quiz your Water Knowledge)

It’s World Water Day, March 22, 2021 (www.WorldWaterDay.org).  

Time to test your water knowledge with a World Water Day Quiz. 

Some days we wish it would rain. Some days, we wish it would stop. But every day, not just March 22, we should stop and appreciate the importance of water. How important it is to out our being, to our lives, to our living and to our existence.

Backup to a Better Backup Generator Solution

You may already have a backup generator for the house. In fact, you may have the backup generator with you just about everywhere you go. Plus, it might be totally quiet, for hours.

Yep, we are talking about your hybrid gas-electric vehicle. Hybrids have been selling like crazy on the farms because they can easily be used to generate 120-volt electricity to run hand tools and generally provide backup power.

Most newer vehicles offer a 120 plug, but they won’t power much. What you need is an inverter that will power whatever you want, frequently 300 to 400 watts will be sufficient for many applications. Smaller inverters can be simply plugged into a cigarette lighter, but bigger inverters should be wired directly to the battery.

A backup solution for the house is rather awkward, inconvenient and requires fuel at a time when the least fuel is available, storms and outages. Here’s the cost for a generator solution.

Generator

The generator solution costs something like this:

·         Generator $500 (or about $500 to $1,000 for an inverter that is much quieter and provides smoother power).

·         Fuel, maybe 8 to 12 gals per day. At 10 gals x $3 is $30 per day.

·         Storage of generator and fuel cans.

Traditional generators (gas or propane or diesel) provide lots of smoke, noise, and require maintenance. The generator produces electricity, even under very low loads, so much (maybe most) of the electricity (and fuel) is wasted.

Generators are best used some distance from the house so as not to asphyxiate the inhabitants.

Tip. Make sure not to allow the generator to run out of fuel, the sputtering causes the generator to surge which kills off appliances at an alarming rate.

Auto with Inverter

Hooking an inverter to the vehicle may be a very good solution for many purposes, especially lower loads in the house such as refrigerator, lights and fans. However, you will have to go start the vehicle before the battery gets too low. (Taking regular lead batteries below 50% will seriously erode their life span.)

A 1000-Watt inverter can cost between $80 and $110 (modified-sine wave), and about twice that for the higher quality output of a pure-sine wave recommended for sensitive electronics.

Your vehicle is rather quiet, and rather fuel efficient compared to a generator. Your typical vehicle will not be able to handle large loads, however. One approach is to set up a battery (or battery bank) that can be recharged via the vehicle.

Even better is to hook up to your hybrid vehicle.

Hybrid Vehicle with Inverter

The hybrid vehicle is a wonderful backup power supply, just like the uninterruptable power supply (UPS) you use for your computers and wifi. You can have continuous power as needed, when needed. Plus, the hybrid vehicle is designed to start up the motor and recharge when the collective batteries get low. Very cool.

Here’s how you do it. Hook up your power inverter directly to the 12-Volt (direct current) battery of the hybrid vehicle to produce alternating current (120 AC). Put the vehicle in the “on” mode, but with all the vehicle electronics turned off, i.e., turn the air conditioner and lights off. Now, when the batteries run low, the vehicle will automatically start to recharge all the batteries, lithium as well as the 12-volt battery.

Tip: Please make sure the vehicle is in a safely ventilated area. Do not set this arrangement up in the garage!

Add in a Battery (Bank) and a Solar Panel (or More)

So good news, you now have an inverter with your vehicle so you can use good, clean, quiet power anywhere you and your Prius happen to be. Yippee!

But how about the home or cabin when the Prius is away?

Get a battery or more, and hook up the inverter to it. This should help you get through several hours with just the refrigerator. Batteries of this type (deep cycle, for example) will cost $150 to $350 each.

Then, get a solar panel, or more, and hook them up to recharge your batteries during sunlight hours. (Costco has a 100W Coleman with 8.5 amp charge controller for $159.)

Now, I have continuous power for low load (the battery plus a 1100W inverter at $90, all for under $400). I’ll buy more batteries and/or more solar panels as and when I need them. The 1100-watt inverter does everything that I want to do in emergency or in the cabin. It does a small air conditioner (window unit or small mini-split for a short period of time; a refrigerator for several hours; LED lights and fans for days). It won’t do central air, well pump, oven, dryer, hot-water heater, microwave, or several heavy load items simultaneously. Bigger load electronics include blenders (making Hurricanes and Margaritas), blow dryer; coffee pots, electric saw, etc…

Be careful putting together your system and your battery banks. Hooking two 12V 100 amp batteries together can result in doubling of the voltage (48 Volt in series) or double the amps (200 amp hours in parallel) depending on how you hook them together. Make sure you get the right inverter to match the higher voltage if you go in series. Try to get the same batteries if you bank ‘em.

I can see you eyeing your electric golf cart, you already have your own battery bank on wheels. Unfortunately, the voltage will be 36 or 48 Volts (say 6 x 6-volt batteries hooked up in series is 36 volt). Your inverter would need to match the voltage of your cart (or carefully hook up a 12-volt inverter to 12-volt battery equivalent, which in this case is two 6-volt batteries).

In short, you may already have a great backup power supply solution. Hook up your hybrid to an inverter and you are good to go. Add in a battery (or more) and a solar panel (or more) and you have a nice, quiet, renewable power solution.

Tip. Use a volt meter. The meter is cheap. Burning out electronics can be expensive, cause fires, shock the bejeebers out of you, and generally be very inconvenient!

Tip2. When you buy your new hybrid vehicle you get “up to” $7,500 back in the form of current-year tax credits! The federal tax credits for new EV and PHEV cars (and for home solar, as well) are phasing down, so you might want to accelerate your purchasing decisions. (See ins and outs of tax credit for vehicles at Edmonds.)

Do we all need to rethink the way the design/plan for (emergency) backup power? Let us know what you think? 

Babcock Ranch aims to be first solar-powered town in US | USA News | Al Jazeera

Babcock Ranch aims to be first solar-powered town in US | USA News | Al Jazeera:

This is in partnership with FPL (Nextera) for the power. The powerplant is already up and running that will support an almost 200,000 home community.  FPL has extended the solar to include 10 megawatts of battery, thus allowing the solar power plant to offer more flexibility to the power grid and on-demand peaking power.

The 440 acres for the power plant (now with about 350,000 PV panels) were donated to FPL at the Babcock Ranch. The whole town is 100% electric with electric trolley and charging stations. They even have SolarTrees(tm) for you to charge your phone or laptop in the park and demonstrate how solar works.

This city is west of LaBelle on the way toward Ft Meyers. Very sustainable. Now has several developers building and each home has the "option" to have solar installed.

Here's another take with a human touch from FoxNews. Talking about the first people to move into the "city" and the first baby to be born in Babcock Ranch.

This is a very cool example of how a city can be built from the ground up as sustainable -- zero carbon footprint, as it pertains to electricity. There is the obvious question, however, of urban sprawl to suburbia, that has had suburban sprawl.

In a city, with lots and lots of impermeable surfaces (roofs and parking lots), it would be very possible to retrofit the sustainability solutions.

Way to go FPL. Within five years (2023), FPL plans to produce more from solar than from coal+NatGas combined. Additionally, FPL's sister company FPL Energy is the largest wind producer in the US, and 2nd largest in the world. !:-)  ... NextEra is the publicly ~$75B market cap holding company (NEE).

FPL does have some nuclear, with plans and approval for expansion. The Turkey Point plant has been problematic and has its own set of issues. Leaks in the cooling canals, and no real plan for ways to store nuclear waste, has the Sierra Club (a group that should generally be friendly to nuclear) up in arms.  They also don't like some of the sweet-heart deals for FPL that have been approved (rubber-stamped) by the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC). The sneaky and deceptive amendment on the Florida ballet last year -- a move designed to kill solar -- by the southern power companies (in which FPL donated $8m) is still fresh in the minds of Floridians.

Nuclear in general has issues in the future energy mix. Nuclear is wonderful for base load, but not great as a peaking power source. If/when we move seriously and definitively toward solar in Florida, there should be high renewable energy at various times throughout the day, and none during rain or at night, so nuclear continues to be less effective. See how California is planning the retirement of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant and looking for other forms of peaking power as more and more power comes from renewables. Nuclear plants seem to have no plan, of any kind, as to what to do with nuclear wast; the only plan seems to be to hold on-site forever.

At some point the power monopolies need to deal with the reality that every home and every business can and will generate part or all of their electricity. This means that the future of the grid is connecting power creators with power consumers using a smart grid and dynamic pricing. Part of the day I may be a net producer, part of the night I may be a net consumer. One analogy of this type of Smart Grid is to think of it like the Internet. Sometimes I'm uploading content, sometimes I'm downloading. The Internet directs from where power is produced, to where it is needed. The Smart Grid power company will be more like the Internet Service Provider (ISP) of old by providing power as needed, where needed. The internet of things (IoT), but with power, is essentially what we're talking about. Maybe the Energy of Everything (EoE)?:-)

Power companies need a new business model (currently the model is based on ROE with the PSC assuring prices that justify a good return on investment). Producing and selling more and more electricity to make more and more money is a broken model. Building bigger and grander centralized power plants is horribly inefficient; about 60% of energy is lost in the production (steam) and distribution.

We are really glad to see FPL's effort into solar. Florida, and NextEra, could do more. Time for the power monopolies to make the change before they get overrun. The power model is changing... Trying to block this massive change is a little like stacking rocks in front of a glacier ...

'via Blog this'

California Becomes First State to Mandate Solar on New Homes - Bloomberg

California Becomes First State to Mandate Solar on New Homes - Bloomberg:

California is 1/3 of the US economy and probably 1/3 of the US housing market. So, when California voted today to have mandatory solar on most new construction houses, this blows the top off of the non-solar rooftop.

Headlines read that the CA house will now cost about an additional $10,000 to build with the energy efficiency and solar roof mandates. This Bloomberg article says that the savings will be about twice the increase in building costs.

True, it costs more to build, but the operating costs are dramatically less.

This is related to new houses, so the decision is easier than for an existing house.

However, that decision should be really simple as well for a house with good sun exposure. There are tax credits and ways to finance that will allow the homeowner to pay for the solar system out of the savings in power, until the whole solar system is paid off in 15-20 years and then it is a perpetuity of savings!...

So, a $40,000 system in Florida is $28,000 after a 30% federal tax credit. The payment on the loan would be equal to, or less than the payments for electricity, on average. And, after you pay off the system in, say, 15 years, you have about $250 worth of net savings per month for a long, long time. That's $3,000 per year in year 15; as a perpetuity, at 5% interest, the net present value is about $29,000 positive.

Wait a minute. That is more, net present value-wise, then the entire out-of-pocket cost of the system if you had paid cash up front (less the tax credit). But you may not have paid any cash up front for it and paid all loan/lease payments from the savings on the electric bill!

So, if the same math applies for a $300,000 home in California (cause everything's far more expensive in California), which is now increased to $310,000. The additionally $10k can be separately financed; probably, with terms of nothing down and loan payments that are less than the electric bill. That is, from day one, the cash flows from operations are as good or better than paying full electric bills.

Once you pay off the PV loan, you now have free electricity, for a long time.

Plus, it is good for the environment and reduces CO2 emissions, and significantly reduces the reliance on centralized energy production form your favorite power utility.

The net present value of the cash flows may be $10-$20,000 positive.

A couple important factors: Power companies have traditionally increased costs by more than the level of inflation (inflation at about 2% and rising). Inflation and interest rates should rise significantly with full employment. PV technology reduces very slightly over time (0.5% per year).

The private PV power system protects against the rising costs of power.
....
So, the headlines might more accurately read:

New CA Solar Mandate will increase home costs by about $10,000 but offset by about twice from the reduced of operating costs. 

Another win, win, win of sustainability.

This should not be a hard decision to make, in any sunny state. The mandate should not be necessary. Consumers should be making this decision as a smart decision, not just a green decision.
Being Green, and making Green too.

'via Blog this'

Contura Coal Goes Public -- jumping off of the coal train!

Contura Energy is going public. (CTRA).

On the one hand, they have a lot of metallurgical coal; on the other hand it seems like a rather bad investment -- especially long-term.

All the proceeds will go to buy out existing stock holders. Existing shareholders are based on creditors... Alpha Resources went bankrupt and the Contura Energy company rose out out of the ashes.  (After Peabody went bankrupt also in 2016, about half of US coal miners, and about half of US coal production comes from bankrupt mining companies.)

At some point, coal should hit peak simply because we eventually run out of it... But based on reduced demand, it appears to have peaked in 2012 (see peak coal).

Coal really should be taxed because of the massive negative externalities. No one anywhere can think that the cost of coal at the meter in anyway resembles to true cost of burning coal. Many of Contura's mines are strip mines, so the added environmental costs are huge in those local areas. Health impacts affect hundreds of millions of people and contribution to deaths is millions.

Remember one of the dirty little secrets of coal: Coal Ash.

Environmental impact of coal. The true costs of coal, including externality costs, could easily be at least twice what we pay for it per ton. One estimate in Europe is that hidden coal costs are 1-2% of GDP.

Plus there's the major contribution to greenhouse gases.

China, the world's largest consumer of coal (50%) is back-peddling on coal at an astounding rate. At one point, less than 10 years ago, they had 2 new coal-powered plants coming on-board every week. Now, they may have only a handful more (finished). Like the US, we can expect China to continue converting their coal to NatGas.

As a percentage of the world primary energy mix, coal has dropped below 30%, never to return again. In the US, NatGas has switched with coal as the primary source of electric generation (coal dropping from about 40% ten years ago to only about 30% now). NatGas is so much cheaper, cleaner, safer. Plus the renewables are really starting to be competitive and gain critical mass. Many wind and solar projects are getting to be cheaper per KW than coal (before considering externalities).

India is the other big wildcard. In many cases they are aiming to skip the smokestack technology and go straight to solar. In many cases, India has serious water issues (since mass amounts of water are needed to run steam turbines in conventional energy).

So, is it a good investment to buy into the Contra IPO? All the money goes to giving existing shareholders a parachute so that they can get out of the coal plane -- well, off of the coal train, technically.

'via Blog this'

ECO:nomics | The Wall Street Journal

ECO:nomics | The Wall Street Journal:

The WSJ's big forum on ECOnomics seems to have been a great learning and sharing session for divergent ideas on how to blend economic growth/development with environmental needs.

A special report in the WSJ on Wed, April 13, 2016 offers several takes and interviews covering the spectrum of associated topics.

A couple base statistics are that coal generated electricity has dropped from half of all US generation to less than 1/3 within about 10 years. The big gain is Nat Gas, but that too is changing. In 2015 solar was the #1 install base with 9.5 gw (37% of new), NatGas 8 gw (31%), wind 6.8 gw (26%). Only 4% new nuclear and fractions of other.

Related to the switch from coal to NatGas, this is only a stop-gap measure: moving from one really bad non-renewable, coal; to a relatively better non-renewable, NatGas. Michael Brune from the Sierra Club comments on the methane and other issues that brings NatGas closer to parody with coal (really ugly vs. relatively ugly).

Coal is really taking a hit, as Peabody goes bankrupt this week, bringing down all of the big coal companies. No victory laps here; the pain and suffering in the mining communities is going to be horrendous. (Also, bankruptcy doesn't mean the mines will all stop, just that the debt associated with the companies will replace the equity positions.)

Even against crashing oil/coal prices, solar & wind are winning major solid footing. Even with the likelihood of subsidies going away, are now starting to be very price competitive (especially if you consider externality costs). BUT when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine (night) we still need regular power generation. Or battery-type storage.

You have to marvel at the gain of renewables during the second year of record low fossil fuel costs. That is really, really impressive.

Check out all the articles on the ECOnomics conference and interviews at the special business & energy section of the WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/news/types/journal-reports-energy

'via Blog this'

Great answers on climate and solutions.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/10/opinions/cop21-facebook-chat/index.html
This has been some of the clearest points about renewable energy, and why it is so important.

Power Struggle: How the Energy Market Could Shift in 2016 - Bloomberg Business

Power Struggle: How the Energy Market Could Shift in 2016 - Bloomberg Business:

Wow. Absolutely perfect assessment of the energy world, past and future.

With pretty graphics to go along with the trends in energy.

So what will be the energy source(s) of the future.

The one thing for sure, is that it won't be coal. As the rest of the world gets out of coal, so will the 2.3B people in China and India. They simply can't afford the pollution and health costs that come free with cheap coal.

The assessment seems puts energy into perspective, and indicates how a clear transition from one form to another (wood to coal, and coal to oil) might not be what we can expect to look forward to in the future.

Don't want to ruin the ending, you will have to watch all 3 minutes of the video to find out what to expect in the energy world.

'via Blog this'

FPL gets approval to charge customers for fracking investment... The Real Story.

FPL gets approval to charge customers for fracking investment | Tampa Bay Times:

I was astounded to here that FPL is getting into the Fracking business. There's this baloney about trying to save some money for their investors. FPL Customers pay, in advance, to drill Nat Gas wells in Alabama, and then reap some of the benefits of the wells, if any, in the form of low NatGas prices in the future.

It sounds too good to be true. And leaves you shaking your head as to why a publicly regulated power utility would wonder off the path into the woods looking for firewood and NatGas.

So the Fla PSC rubber stamped the deal. As they always do. (Although the PSC turned down a petition to pay for Federal Lobbying, an obvious red herring in the mix.)

Comes to find out that NextEra, the parent company of FPL, already has oil drilling interests... 

There are many reasons why a power company might want to get into the drilling business, but the one given seems like the very last on the list.

Water, maybe. Fracking takes huge amount of water, as does power generation.

Pipe lines. Power companies already have massive right-of-ways related to power lines. This seems like a perfect fit: run power through the line and gas through the ground.

The one I like best would be to capture the NatGas that is flared in oilfields, produce power and send the power off to the grid through wire. We currently flare half of all NatGas produced in the USA. Nobody really wants to talk about it, but probably more than half. (Better to flare it, then release the methane, but still a very ugly and wasteful business).

Here seems to be the answer: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) through pipelines to markets, domestic and abroad. We in the US pay only bout 1/3 of what the rest of the world pays for NatGas. At about $3.50 per unit for us, and maybe $10-$12 for most other countries. Liquidification and shipping LNG is in the works on many fronts. Cheniere Energy, Inc.
(trading symbol LNG) is coming on board with export terminals with a vengeance. 

Imagine what it will look like when our mountains of NatGas start to look like mountains of dollars.

So what does this mean in the next era of power utilities? I don't really know. It should take some time to understand the maze and the interlinking parts. 

Here is discussion about Spectra Energy (drilling and such) and FPL and the pipeline in existence and/or planned. LAKE.org article. There's a pipeline through the Gulf...

So very interesting.

And, of course, it has to be mentioned: NatGas is far better than that other major fuel (not mentioning any names, like Coal), but it is still not a renewable resources. Non-sustainable, by any other name, is still a broken business model... It's just a mater of time.

'via Blog this'

Energy Efficiency & Renewables... Good signs for both.

In one recent edition of the New York Times, there were two very positive articles on energy efficiency and improving the cost/kwh of renewables.  The Monday, November 24, 2014, issue featured "Good News on Energy," by Ralph Cavanagh of theNatural Resources Defense Fund, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/opinion/good-news-on-energy.html? and "Solar and Wind energy Start to Win on Price vs. Conventional Fuels," by Diane Cardwell, http://nyti.ms/1yJq2r0.

From Cavanagh, peaked energy use occurred in the US in 2007 and has trended downward since with a small increase in 2013.  And, economic growth is increasing more rapidly than the growth in energy usage because technology is making energy sources more efficient.  The LED light bulb is a good example.  Improvements over the last 40 years have done more to meet US energy needs than the combined contributions of oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power.

Electricity consumption has decreased since 2000 despite the introduction of new consumer electronics.  Moreover, oil consumption by homes, businesses and vehicles is down 12% since the peak in 2005.  June, 2013, began a 12-month period in which the combined usage of renewables exceeded hydroelectric power.  More than 12% of our energy supplied comes from renewables and that category is growing faster than the others.

In her article, Cardwell confirms that the cost of providing electricity from wind and solar has dropped significantly in the last five years, so much so that in some markets renewable generation is now cheaper than coal or natural gas.  Several utility companies in the Great Plains and Southwest where wind and sunlight are abundant have signed power purchase contracts, known as "power purchase agreements," for solar and wind at prices below that of natural gas.

According to Lazard, an investment banking firm, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is 5.6 cents/kwh with wind as low as 1.4 cents/kwh.  Without federal subsidies that are up for renewal by Congress in 2016, solar costs are about 7.2 cents/kwh and wind would be 3.7 cents/kwh.  Natural gas is at 6.1 cents/kwh on the low end and coal is at 6.6 cents.

Both renewables and fossils have limitations.  For renewables, the wind has to blow and the sun has to shine as electrical storage technology needs a break through.  For the fossils, there are regulations and costs due to carbon emissions pollution.  One can expect this hybridization of fossils and renewables to continue for a considerable period of time.
Minor edits: 12/17/2014.

Virtual Event Program | GreenBiz

Virtual Event Program | GreenBiz:


BIG VERGE conference starts today.

Put on by Green Biz.

Virtual if you want to have a baby footprint on a great meeting. The travel time is a little less than going to San Francisco (although you will miss the foods and sounds and local color).

This is a really interesting mix... Including some big companies and some disrupters.



'via Blog this'

The energy we (US) use, and don't!

WoW! This is the new energy charge for the US. Note that the new chart shows how much energy we waste as well as how much weed is! Far more goes to waste.
And 2013 was the first year that energy consumption was up, since 2010. One benefit of a recession is that you produce less of a carbon footprint, and get more efficient.
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2014/Apr/NR-14-04-01.html#.VCOBhMcpDMK

BioLite BaseCamp Stove | Turn Fire into Electricity by BioLite. Saving lives, one stove at a time. Kickstarter Funded project.

Repost from IPzine...
BioLite BaseCamp Stove | Turn Fire into Electricity by BioLite — Kickstarter:

I love it. But only 62 hours to get in on the KickStarter offer. They are at twice goal with $800k+ and 3,000 backers.

Yes, it was DARK in Miami, when Hurricane Andrew came through South Miami/Homestead on August 24, 1992. Well, afterwards really. It would be weeks before most of us would get power. So bar-b-q grilling was the norm. That was not quite as much fun after a week or two without baths and without air conditioning. Little or no ice and warm drinks. Muggy and humid.

You did want to cook, obviously, but all the heat from the grill was the last thing we needed.

But a really cool cooking stove popped up in New York. A tiny stove the burned wood (or charcoal) and produced focused head for cooking. No need to cook the cook too.


This technology works wonders in countries where there is little or no electricity, and wood is often scarce, and the smoke from open cooking causes some of the world's worst health issues (probably only exceeded by water/sanitation).
You gotta see how far the technology has come. This is a BIG stove, relatively, that generates electricity (USB power) and has battery. It has an internal fan, to fan the fire so it can produce some serious heat possibilities -- especially given the ability to focus the flame.

This version comes with an LED light so you can see what's cooking at night.

As they say, this is the first version of the BaseCamp that is crowd designed. When you jump in on the crowd funding at KickStarter (BaseCamp) you will get a free carrying case.

You also get the warm-fuzzy feeling of knowing that this technology will save millions and millions of lives in energy starved countries.

All very very cool.

'via Blog this'

World Water Day 2014 -- March 22

Welcome to the World Water Day of 2014: This year’s theme is Water & Energy.

By the Way: Earth Day is coming in a month, April 22!!!
Look for Seminar information.

See the 2011 SustainZine post related to World Water Day. Some info is borrowed here.

World Water Day

The 44^th World Water Day (March 22, 2014): http://www.unwater.org/worldwaterday/

  World Water Day can easily flooded past us without most of us hearing a drop about it.!:-(  And why is that, you may be wondering? Or not… The problem with this, and most things sustainability related, is where to start.  And how do we put the critical sustainability issue of water onto our daily radar screen.

Water, Water, Everywhere…

  Water, so critical to life can be devastating in its absence. It can be devastating in abundance. Australia, plagued with decades of drought, finally got rain in 2011: it had an area flooded the size of Germany and France combined!  This was followed in February with Cyclone Yasi in the northeast. (A cyclone is the Pacific version of a hurricane… and, yes, they went through the alphabet to get to Y.) We know a lot about hurricanes for two years starting in 2004 giving us in Florida 3 or 4 per year including Katrina that also hit New Orleans.

  Then in the Winter of 2013-2014 we got snow, and more snow (let’s call that a polar vortex). In the meantime Europe (England) got drowned in rain.

But the quiet pain associated with water is very easily preventable with very little money. More than 1 billion of our world’s 6.9B population have inadequate drinking water with an additional 1B having inadequate sanitation. The result is that more than 3.5 million people die each year because of easily preventable water-related diseases (World Health Organization at www.WHO.int).  Approximately half of the world’s hospital beds are taken by water and hygiene-related diseases (http://water.org/learn-about-the-water-crisis/facts/).  [This should be updated, it has improved since 2011.]

The Nexus of Energy with Water, Paper, Plastic and Transportation.

  Few people realize how much water it takes to produce energy. How much water to power a light bulb, for example? To power a 60 watt bulb 12 hours per day for a year? How about 3,000 to 6,000, depending on the power source, it could be more or less. See here.

  The water doesn't go away, per se. Water might be taken in upstream, used to produce steam and power turbines and then released downstream.  Give a look at the Nexus sections in the outline on the last page of Climate Changes and Sustainability, a WikiBook: http://tinyurl.com/SustainYBook

Power and the Nexus of Energy, Water, Paper, Plastic, etc. are discussed in Wikipdedia:

Electricity generation

Water

Water-energy nexus

Plastic

World Water Day

  World Water Day was initiated to try to solve health and wellness problems around the world where people have poor water and sanitation. The UN has a 10 year program to attempt to overcome the pain and death associated with inadequate water by 2015. Progress has been made, but it is slow.

WATER STATS: Most of the earth’s surface (70%+) is water. Yet only about 2.5% is freshwater. (The salt in oceans and some lakes make it unusable for drinking, agriculture, etc. without expensive desalinization processing.) Of the world’s freshwater 68.7% is in ice caps and glaciers, 30.1% is underground, ~1% is other, and barely 0.3% is fresh surface water! That’s about 0.009% of our total is fresh surface water. Freshwater is lakes (87%), swamps (11%) and rivers (2%). So as we divert and consume the fresh water available to us – taking from rivers and aquifers – the impacts become ever greater as rivers dry and ancient aquifers are depleted.

This year the theme is Water & Energy. Most people don’t realize the Nexus of Water and Energy.

The Water Bubble and Water Wars

  The water bubble may be coming faster than we originally thought... Water sources, especially the invisible underwater aquifers are being depleted.  This will show in increased prices for water, water shortages and food shortages/prices (Marks, 2009). “We're fast draining the fresh water resources our farms rely on, warns Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute” (George, 2011). Our own Ogallala Aquifer in the high plans of the US (underground aquifer from Texas through Wyoming) will be depleted in about 25 years. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer.).

  Water wars and water conflicts are expected to increase dramatically. Counties (and states) that are at the headwaters of rivers can take all the water and leave nothing for the cities, farmers and fishermen below. 

  Worst case, and a horrible example, is the Aral Sea. What used to be the world’s 4^th largest lake is now mostly dry, highly salty and toxically polluted. Russia has been consuming the water that would have run downstream (and through) the former USSR state of Kazakhstan. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea and the following news video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8b0svfuO_k at Russia Today.)

  The truth of the matter is... that water matters!  …

  Even in Florida where we are surrounded by H2O.

What can we do?

  Basically, we need to become more informed about the sustainability impact of all we say and do. We need to become more informed consumers of water. Maybe compute our water footprint. Please fill out the H2O Footprint calculator. We need to start conserving more water, more energy and more resource. (Recycling actually saves huge amounts of energy and water.)

 1)      Compute your water footprint (and take actions to reduce it):

a.       H2O Footprint: http://www.h2oconserve.org (Water footprint calculator.)

b.      At National Geographic: http://www.fooducate.com/blog/2010/03/22/eight-interesting-facts-on-world-water-day/

c.       Water footprint of food, products, etc.: http://www.waterfootprint.org

2)      The average American uses 2,000 gallons per day, more than twice the global average when all things are considered. (Most of the statistics will show only about 1,000 gpd, but they don’t include food, energy, etc.)

3)      For Florida-centric details & water-saving tips, please visit: www.WaterMatters.org and www.savewaterfl.com.

4)      References and links below.

Look for information about Earth Day 2014 coming up on Tuesday April 22.

Thanks for listening, reading, and thinking about sustainability.

Let’s be good stewards of our God-given resources: water and more.

Some References

George, L. (2011, Feb. 2) Earth economist: The food bubble is about to burst . New Scientist. Retrieved from:  http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927986.400-earth-economist-the-food-bubble-is-about-to-burst.html

Marks, S. J. (2009). Aqua shock: The water crisis in America. NY, NY: Bloomberg Press.

Some Links:

·         Official site: http://www.unwater.org/worldwaterday/

·         http://www.UNWater.org

·         http://www.Water.org

·         http://worldwater.org/

Reduce Oil Dependence Costs

Reduce Oil Dependence Costs: "Nearly 40% of the oil we use is imported, costing us roughly $300 billion annually. Increased domestic oil production from shale formations and improved fuel economy standards have decreased oil imports over the past few years, but the U.S. Department of Energy projects that we will continue to rely on imports for 35% to 40% of our petroleum needs in the future."

This is interesting. The rate of oil imports is dropping like lead. We are down dramatically form 13m Barrels per day in August 2006 before the Great Recession to only about 6m in 2013. See stats here: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTNTUS2&f=M

Several oil Execs have commented that we should be North-America energy independent about the end of this decade. US independence should probably happen within 10 years, (Assuming that the US gov let's us start exporting.)

How did the Department of Energy get this so very wrong?

'via Blog this'

The Energy Quiz | ExxonMobil

The Energy Quiz | ExxonMobil:

Try the energy Quiz from ExxonMobil:  exxonmobil.com/quiz
It has 4 categories related to energy: people, sources, uses and savings. There are 5 questions in each section.

Interesting that the actual quiz lives here: http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/company/advertising-campaigns/energy-lives-here/quiz
Under the advertising campaign.

I didn't do well on the quiz. And you probably won't either. I do take issue with at least one of the 5 questions in each category. I don't like how they state projections as fact. (Make sure not to over think it.)

BUT this is a very cool quiz and provides very nice information for people to think about.

'via Blog this'

A Shrinking U.S. Trade Deficit—Brought to You by Fracking - Businessweek

A Shrinking U.S. Trade Deficit—Brought to You by Fracking - Businessweek:

US trade deficit is shrinking. Rapidly.

The reason is the import of oil is a very expensive commodity. By the end of this decade, North America should be trade neutral on energy and then move to a surplus thereafter. At peak, the US trade deficit was about 6% of GDP. That is, our GDP would be reduced by the oil that is not produced domestically, but produced afar.

For a country such as Saudi Arabia, with only about $30 to $40 costs associated with producing a barrel of oil, that leaves about $60 of profits. All of that money per barrel leaves the US and goes to foreign governments and foreign companies (or Multi-national companies).

With all the new found oil at home, the GDP jumps by a couple percent. The trade deficit -- as it pertains to energy -- will shift form a percent or two deficit to  becoming a surplus within 10 years.

Economically, this is a beautiful think. If the US were a developing country this would be called economic development utilizing import substitution. Here is a blog on US Energy  that discusses the US Energy Outlook Report for 2013. Want to look at forecasts of the future, go to US Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 2013.

As we drop from 10M barrels per day of oil-type imports to zero we will drop more than $300B in trade deficits (more than 2% of GDP). (See http://www.eia.gov/.)

National security improves.

Of course there is one small caveat. Oil, gas, coal and Nat Gas are non-renewable resources. That means that they must be phased out, sooner or later.

Beautiful thing economically, but with a few clouds surrounding it.

'via Blog this'

Next generation of biofuels is still years away | Hattiesburg American | hattiesburgamerican.com

Next generation of biofuels is still years away | Hattiesburg American | hattiesburgamerican.com:

Biofuel is a byline in the energy mix.

So biofuel is mandated. And because it is ordered to be true, it must be.

And because it is ordered to be true, the mandate must meet the expectations.

Thus is the problem with government subsidies... Burning food for fuel (corn to ethanol) is still a rather dumb idea, even though it is finally getting efficient enough that there is a small net gain gallon-equivalent per gallon of ethanol.

What would work perfectly well, from an economics point of view, is to raise taxes on non-renewable sources of fuel and energy. A simple carbon tax would do it. It could be progressive over time.

Then the more accurate costs of non-renewables would allow for the energy economy to shift and make its on path forward. The types of renewable fuel would decide themselves and the government would be out of the picture setting mandates in less-than-smart -- some might say foolish -- areas.

Of course the politicians who set the wheels in process for a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade (tax?) will soon find themselves out to pasture shoveling biowaste.

'via Blog this'

Ceres Monthly Newsletter - Flaring of Gas/NatGas

Ceres Monthly Newsletter:
Ceres Monthly Newsletter - Flaring of Gas/NatGas
This report starts to document the amount of gas (nat gas) that is flared in the production of oil/gas.

In the US we can't get the nat gas to market, so it is imply flared in many cases. The oil (wet particulates) are much more valuable so that is shipped by pipe if possible, but by truck or train if not.

One statement from a CEO in the oil patch has commented that half of the nat gas produces in the US is being flared. Safety, of course is critical. But this is a humongous waste of energy and environmental waste as well.

Check out the article and then look at the report here: http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/flaring-up-north-dakota-natural-gas-flaring-more-than-doubles-in-two-years/view

Basic economics is one approach to this issue. If NatGas were more valuable, then there would be very little flaring. Right now it is about $3.50 (per ... unit) in the USA. So Nat gas is a byproduct of the production of oil unless it can be readily distributed to market (pipeline).  But for the world markets, NatGas is very valuable, let's say $10. If we can bridge the gap from domestic only to world, then the price would jump and the flaring would, well, burn out. :-)

The key is liquefied natural gas (LNG). Not coincidentally, LNG is the trading symbol of Chaniere Energy, one the the leading players in infrastructure for exporting LNG.

'via Blog this'