Friensly sandals

I have previously blogged about environmentally friendly clothing like boardshorts and snowboarding outerwear. I have recently learned of a new company. It is called Ocean Minded. They make sandals and shoes along with shirts from organic materials.

They are doing their part by using recycled rubber and abundant materials like hemp, which are strong and grow quickly. The company was founded by surfers who noticed their beaches were becoming more and more polluted with trash. They were upset with how people abuse the environment that they depend on and love. In 1996 the company began organizing beach clean ups, where they would walk the beaches picking up trash.

“Ocean Minded joined forces with the Pringle Bay Eco House to remove and properly dispose of over 1,410 pounds of trash at Maasbay Beach, South Africa. 34 kids and adults spent two hours making a big impact on the local community and fishermen.”

This small grassroots company has grown due to the devoted people who love the world and all the treasures it holds. It has been able to make significant impacts on local beaches and now beaches around the world, not to mention making solid products that also have a reduced negative impact on the environment.

http://internationalsurfingday.ning.com/ (picture)

 

http://www.oceanminded.com/index.html

http://surf.transworld.net/2009/04/22/ocean-minded-and-earl-warrens-ocean-club-beach-clean-up/

Higher Standards for Everything

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has stepped up the emission standards not only on cars and trucks but also on gas-powered lawn mowers and marine engines. The new standards are set to take effeect on 2010.

“EPA’s new small engine standards will allow Americans to cut air pollution as well as grass,” said EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. “These standards help fight smog in our neighborhoods and waterways as we continue to improve the environmental landscape.”

Once the new standards are in full effect, it will reduce hydrocarbons by 600,000 tons, 130,000 tons of Nitrogen Oxides, 5,500 tons of particulate matter, and 1.5 million tons of carbon monoxide. All large parts of the 6 criteria pollutants we have talked about.

It will most likely require manufacturers to use catalytic converters, much like large SUV’s. It is also estimated that 190 million gallons of gas will be saved each year. This regulation is the first national standards for boats powered by stern-drive or inboard engines and carbon monoxide standards for gasoline-powered engines used in recreational watercraft.

Because both industries are huge summertime activities, these standarads can only help reduce and limit the amount of air pollution, especially because air pollution is worse in our region during the summer.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.htm

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/marinesi.htm

http://www.eponline.com/articles/67356/

Illinois Emission standards

After discussing criteria pollutants and how California had some of the strictest emission standards, I wanted to know what Illinois tested for when testing emissions on vehicles.

There are two tests performed in Illinois when you get your vehicle tested. They are the OBD or the On Board Diagnostics test and the the idle exhaust and gas cap tests. The idle exhaust test uses a tailpipe probe to test the level of CO and HC emmited by the car. The gas cap test determines if there are to many fumes being released where the gass cap should be sealing them off. If a car passes all the tests, it is good to go on the road. If a car fails however, you must go through multiple steps to remedy the situation, which is a long and annoying task.

 

http://www.epa.state.il.us/air/vim/failure.html

http://www.epa.state.il.us/air/vim/about.html

Fuel Efficiency Beyond the E-way

Everyone seems to be talking about more fuel efficient cars. We all want better mileage on the highway and even in the city. Car companies are doing whatever they can to increase fuel efficiency and sell more cars in our current economic state. But what about the waterways?

I doubt most people realize how much fuel a boat uses, and I know that it is freezing outside and most people wont care right now, but come summer time, I know you all would love to be chillin’ out on the boats. I work at a marina in Lake Geneva where we can pump thousands of gallons into boats on a busy day. The sad fact of the matter is, no matter how careful we are, gas ends up in the lake, and can have a negative effect on the animals that call the water home. I have even encountered peple that refuse to swim by our piers anymore because it is so much dirtier than when they were kids 30 years ago.

I’m getting away from my point now which is boats. Boats have huge gas tanks, but where does all the gas go? An average 20-24 foot boat will have a capacity of 40-60 gallons for its gas. Put that into a top class wakeboarding boat and that gas could be gone in a few days easily. That was a problem that my friends and I encountered over the past couple summers all too often.

When wakeboarding, the concept is to get as much weight into the boat as possible, to create the biggest possible wake for the rider. Piling 10 people on the boat, along with 2000 pounds of ballast (water tanks in the hull), and the boat is sitting real low in the water. Ideally, the boat will throw up a fat wake, however there are downsides to this glorious creation. The fact of the matter is, with more weight in the boat, it takes more power and longer to get the boat up to its planing speed. This increased length of time that this takes burns so much fuel that we often went through a tank in a matter of hours. It is a problem that has been seeking answers for years.

Top of the line wakeboarding boats have now implemented a cruise control system, Perfect Pass, which allows the driver to program how fast the boat is to go. This prevents the driver from having to manually control the speed, which when it varies, wastes much needed gas. The constant speeding up and down without the Perfect Pass is not only a bother to the rider behind the boat, but also to the engine which is working harder, burning more gas.

A new feature, that I saw for the first time the other day, is a device known as the AutoWedge, which is found on the 2009 line of Malibu Wakeboard boats. This device pushes the Pwer Wedge down into the water, creating a larger wake, requiring less ballast. The concept of the wedge is not new, it is the technology working with it. The PowerWedge is not working in tandem with Perfect Pass and automatically lowers when the boat reaches the rider’s set speed. In the past, the wedge was down at all times, creating unnecessary drag on the boats acceleration. Now the boat will be able to reach the desired speed with more ease, burning less fuel. In fact, the PowerWedge saves 30 percent of fuel used when retrieving riders in the water and reaching its planing speed, than if the normal Wedge remained down the entire time.

While it is evident that cars are becoming more efficient, the other motorsport industries are also striving to help the struggling customers, as well as the environment. If boats can decrease the amount of gas they use by 30%, there will be less fuel wasted into the lake and less fuel used all together, which is needed.

Malibuboats.com

Why the murky water?

The turbid streams in Yellowstone are a result of the widening streams and rivers that flow through the park, which as a result cause a loss of soil along the banks, causing sedimentation. The streams used to have vegetation along the banks, but now that is almost nonexistent. Beavers have become scarce in the streams and this is due to a loss of the Aspen trees. All the oldest aspens in the park are dying off and there has been a considerable shortage in trees reaching an adult stage from 1954 to 1992.

 

Initial thoughts to the cause of a dissipating aspen population were global warming or forest fires. Neither of these scenarios proved to be the case. By studying the growth rings on trees, it was determined that the aspens haven’t reproduced since the 1930’s. Another considerable factor in the Yellowstone ecosystem that disappeared in the 30’s is that the last wolf had been killed then.

 

With that in mind, 31 wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone in 1995 in an attempt to see if they would have a positive impact on the aspen population. The wolves quickly rose to become the top predator and the fact is that by wolves killing elk, they are reshaping the landscape. Without the wolves in Yellowstone for 70 years, the elk population exponentially grew to an alarming size, the elk overgrazed, eating the aspen saplings and leading to the turbid streams. By cutting down the elk population, trees and shrubs are returning, as well as beaver colonies have returned, which rely on willows, which only reappeared when the wolves were reintroduced.

 

Why should we care you might ask. We may not be affected by this, but the people that live in areas surrounding Yellowstone care deeply. The main initial question raised was, “Are we willing to live alongside top predators?” People were very worried at first. Their livestock was often attacked, putting ranchers in a tough place. What seemed to be a prevailing thought however is that the people around Yellowstone cared more about the pristine wilderness that their homes are around than the lives of a couple of sheep. One third of the wolves are currently being tracked to help reduce the killing of livestock. When one rogue wolf, a pack leader, was killed because it attacked livestock repeatedly, one rancher was extremely upset. This may seem surprising, but he enjoyed being able to track the wolves and know where they were at all times. This allowed him to watch over his herd, but now he is in the dark as to where the wolves are.

 

Overall, the reintroduction of wolves shows how, when a species is eradicated from its natural environment, in this case due to hunting, there is a ripple effect that will impact everyone around the area. Although it took nearly 70 years to notice this, the concerned people of Yellowstone thought it was imperative that they restore the environment to its original form, countering the destruction that they had caused.

 

 

FILE ** This undated file image provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shows a grey wolf. Wyoming plans to appeal the rejection of its wolf management plan before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Monday March 6, 2006. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rejected Wyoming’s plan because of a provision allowing for indiscriminate killing of wolves outside protected zones. (AP Photo/U.S. fish and Wildlife Service, File)

Heat

a. Carbon capture and sequestration involves the capture of carbon dioxide from power plants and other large carbon dioxide emitting sources. The carbon dioxide is then transported by pipelines to a suitable location and is injected into the ground, into deep underground geological formations.

b. There has been a delay in implementing CCS because the power companies are feeling little incentive to convert because the cost of converting the power plants to one that can use CCS is too great. Also, while all the components of the process have been proven effective, there is not a single power plant that currently uses CCS. There needs to be a commercial-scale project to prove to the skeptics that CCS would work and to know what will happen to the CO2 over long periods of time. The scale issue is both causing a delay in implementing the technology and a foreseeable problem. We don’t know how or if it will actually work on a large scale. This uncertainty poses many problems.

 A foreseen problem is that there is currently no cost to emit CO2 into the atmosphere. If power companies were to shift to CCS technologies, it would cost a great deal and the companies would be less likely to spend money on something that will not help them financially. Another problem that could occur lies in the public. The general public is currently very unaware of CCS and everything it entails. The public would have to be convinced that injecting carbon dioxide into the ground surrounding their homes would not be harmful to the environment or cause a safety threat to their health.

http://pdf.wri.org/carbon_capture_sequestration_faq.pdf

c. Base load is the minimum amount of power that a utility or distribution company must make available to its customers, or the amount of power required to meet minimum demands based on reasonable expectations of customer requirements. 

 

http://www.energyvortex.com/energydictionary/baseload__base_load__baseload_demand.html

d. I don’t think that the U.S. reducing emission and raising emission standards wont be able to counter, and will be outweighed by China and India’s rapid growth. China has now surpassed the U.S. in carbon emissions and is continuing to grow and expand. India is growing at an even faster rate and will surpass China in population by 2030. This fast growing country increases its cement production, which is the third largest contributor to CO2 emissions, by ten percent each year. India is also making it easier and more affordable to buy cars. They are introducing a $2,500 gas powered car. This would make buying a car one of the easiest things. Because of the massive growth of these two countries, they will outweigh any attempt the U.S. makes to reduce carbon emissions. This does not mean however that the U.S. should not make every attempt to reduce the footprint that it has already placed on the world.

The only international solution to the growing problem of carbon emissions would be to implement a global emission standard. We cannot give developing countries a break as was the case with China and India, because they have grown to massive sizes and are now leaders of the pack in carbon emissions. Standards must be stricter on every nation to have any hope of an international solution.

Are they worth it??? NO

 Just looking at sticker price alone, the Chevy Aveo is a quick pick because it is $10,040 less expensive than the Toyota Prius. If you were to look soley at miles per gallon, then you would pick the prius because it gets 11 more miles to the gallon than the Aveo. When you factor these two components together, along with assuming that the average driver drives 12,000 miles a year and the average cost of gas is $4/gallon, the situation becomes a little blurry.

 

I can sort that all out for you.

At 45 mpg, and driving 12,000 miles, the Prius uses approximately 267 gallons/year. The Aveo on the other hand, getting 34 mpg, uses about 353 gallons/year, or 86 more gallons/year than the Prius. At $4/gallon, the Prius owner would spend $1,068 a year and the Aveo owner would spend $1,412 a year, which is $344 more than a Prius owner. At this point it would seem like the Prius is the best buy for all those who are overly concerned with gas prices. These people are too quick to jump to conclusions however.

When you factor in the initial costs to buy the two vehicles and yearly gas costs to keep the cars moving, the Aveo is where your allegiance should stand. By dividing the difference in sticker price by the yearly gas difference, it comes out that only after 29 years of driving a Prius would the costs equate. This is ridiculous. I dont know anyone personally who has been driving the same car everyday for 29 years. It is unheard of.

Another question that arises is the cost of replacement batteries. According to http://www.hybridcars.com/, a typical replacement battery for a hybrid is $3000, but they say that the batteries should last the lifetime of the car. I doubt if they imagine someone would drive the same car for 29 years, so Im sure that replacing the battery would be inevitable.

Overall, if faced with the question of whether or not to buy a Prius or an Aveo, definitely buy the Aveo. There is no way that you will be driving that car everyday for over 30 years that would make buying a Prius justifiable.

 

Calculations

Sticker Price Difference: Prius(21,500)-Aveo(11,460)=$10,040

MPG Difference: Prius(45)-Aveo(34)=11 mpg more

Prius Gallons used per year: 12000 miles/45mpg=267 gallons

Aveo Gallons used per year: 12000 miles/34mpg=353 gallons

Difference in gallons used/year: Aveo(353gallons)-Prius(267 gallons)= Aveo uses 86 gallons/year more

Prius Gas Cost per Year: (267 gallons/year) * ($4/gallon)= $1068/year

Aveo Gas Cost per Year: (353gallons/year) * ($4/gallon)= $1412/year

Difference in Cost per Year: Aveo($1412)-Prius($1068)= $344 more for the Aveo per year

Years until all factors make cars equate in value: Sticker Price Difference($10,040)/Yearly gas casts difference ($344/year)=29 years

 

Grease instead of Gas??

I remember reading about this bus that converted its diesel engine into one that could run on used vegetable oil. I thought that in this day and age, where everyone is looking for an alternate energy source, that I would look this up again. I first read about it in a Snowboarder Magazine. A group of friends had heard about a company, GreaseNotGas, and ended up converting their van’s diesel engine into on that ran on used cooking oil from restaraunts. They successfully made a 12,000 mile, winter long trip using only used cooking oil.

The GreaseNotGas founders started by taking an old diesel engine and converting it somehow (I’m not too good with diesel engines) to run on biodiesel as well as waste vegatable oil, WVO. The optimal fuel source is of course WVO because it is FREE. They found that you could use WVO from any place that fries their foods, which is obviously not hard to find. However they also found that there are certain places that have better WVO to use. Places such as McDonalds and other huge chains often reuse their oil over and over. This leaves a lot of byproducts and crud that can screw up the engine. Asian restaraunts on the other hand, especially Japanese, seem to have the best WVO to use. Those restaraunts require extremely pure oils that shouldnt be used over and over again, because the food that they fry is delicate and requires the purest vegetable oils. Once the oil is obtained it cant be put straight into the fuel tank though. It must fisrt be filtered which isnt that hard. This is because the engine wont work and could potoentially fail if some sort of byproduct got into the combustion chambers.

The use of WVO instead of petroleum gas products, obviously has its benefits to the environment. First of all it is natural and it is also being recycled, rather than just thrown away after it is used to fry our delicious meals. It also cuts down on the refinery processes and the destruction of land to obtain it.

It is said that these vehicles leave behind a scent trail that depending  on how you like the smell of a kitchen could be good or bad.

GreaseNotGas has grown from a personal attempt to reduce a carbon footprint to a huge corporation. They now customize tour buses for all sorts of tours. From sports buses to tour busus for musicians, all different types of people are starting to catch on. Whatever people can do to help the environment that they love and depend on seems to be the case for WVO diesel engine owners.

This is of course not a solution to our oil crisis on a large scale. However I think that it has huge benefits to people who do a lot of travelling. It cuts the fuel costs completely out of the picture because many people are willing to just give their WVO away for free. It is also of no harm, or little harm compared to the extraction of petroleum from the eaarth. Overall, I think that anyone who owns a diesl powered vehicle should seriously look into vconverting their engine into one that can run on WVO. It is not only beneficial to the environment, but also to the owner. All in all, I say YES to using greae rather than gas if it is ever an option.

streetattack.com/media/links/1199116571

 

GreaseNotGas.com

Eco-Friendly Clothing

In the wintersports community, global warming and the effects that it may hold in the future are of great concern. As temperatures increase throughout the world, glaciears are melting and winters are growing shorter. This is affecting resorts, all those who rely on that economy, and more personally, people who love to ski and snowboard.

One clothing company, Quiksilver, is making an effort to reduce the negative impact on the environment. This season, Quiksilver is combining the use of recycled bottles, hemp fabrics, non-toxic natural dyes, and a sustainable design process, launching an environmentally friendly cold weather clothing line. The use of recycled bottles, used in polyester fabrics, reduces the use of raw materials like petroleum, while cutting down on the refining processes. The non-toxic dyes that they use are free from many heavy metals used in industrial dyes. They are also using a PTU laminate on their clothing that completely breaks down in four years, while other laminates can take hundreds of years to fully break down. The only downfall is that you cant keep that jacket as long as you might like.

Another company that has also used similar methods in recent years is Billabong. They have teamed up with the Surfrider Foundation and introduced a line of boardshorts made entirely of recycled water bottles.

 

 Monterosso, Tom. “Quik to Make a Change.” Snowboarder Nov. 2008: 218.

Quiksilver.com

Billabong.com

Alternatives to fossil fuel burning

1. Solar Energy

-Solar energy is only able to harness energy from the sun during the hours of the day and if it is a sunny region. Solar energy is very effective in areas such as Arizona, where homes are in constant direct sunlight. However it would not be a good alternative in rainy areas.

 

 

2. Geothermal

- Geothermal energy is obtained from the internal heat of the planet and can be used to generate steam to run a steam turbine. http://www.cc.utah.edu/~ptt25660/geo.html Geothermal energy is surprisingly efficient, but it is not able to produce enough energy of a large scale for any long period of time.

 

 

3. Wind Power

- Wind power is completely reliant on the weather of any given day. There must be ample amounts of wind to create large sums of energy. “The average wind velocity of Earth is around 9 m/sec. And the power that could be produced when a wind mill is facing the wind of 10 mi/hr. is around 50 watts.” http://www.cc.utah.edu/~ptt25660/wind.html  Essentially, as wind passes over the blades of a windmill, it is forced to rotate and the stronger the wind, the more energy is produced and harnessed.

 

 

4. Hydroelectric

- Hydroelectric power comes from damming a river. After damming a river, the dam allows constant flow of water through turbines. It works remaarkably well but the downfall of this system is that it costs large amounts to build the dam at first. However maintenance is relatively low in costs.

 

5. Tides

- Quite similar to hydroelectric power, the use of tides for power uses turbines as well as water pressure. The difference is that the natural motion of the tides pushes water into reseviors and then slowly releases water through turbines. It only works around oceans so it is not efficient for landlocked nations.

 

Overall i think that each of these are valuable and possible alternatives to the constant burning of fossil fuels. The catch to each of these alternatives is that they only work in certain regions. Therefore depending on where you live, you need to find the corresponding alternative energy source in order to fix the problems caused by the burning and lack of supply of fossil fuels.