Showing posts with label E The Environmental Magazine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label E The Environmental Magazine. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Weekly EarthTalk Column

Editor's Note: We're pleased to have syndicated columnist Doug Moss' column EarthTalk: Question and Answers About Our Environment appearing weekly on the Go Green blog. You can submit questions to Doug via the email and website links below and you just might see an answer posted here. Moss, an eco-expert, also runs the environmentally focused emagazine.com.

Dear EarthTalk: In renovating a vacation cabin, I discovered carpenter ants working their way through the walls. Is there any way to responsibly get rid of the pests without using noxious chemicals that could potentially harm my family? -- Curran Clark, Lummi Island, WA

Carpenter ants may seem small and look harmless, but they can do serious damage to anything wooden in your home, including not only furniture but also the very framing and walls that hold up the house. If you are seeing a lot of ants or small piles of sawdust-like material in random spots in or around your home, you are most likely suffering from a carpenter ant infestation.

Ants are very social beings and form large colonies before spreading out to find additional nest sites. They thrive by hollowing out wood, especially in moist or rotten spots, to build their nests and then use their new home in your walls and chairs as a base camp from which to forage for food and water in their nearby surroundings. Indeed, their very presence is a good indication of moisture or rot problems in the wood, so homeowners may have more work on their hands than simply exterminating carpenter ants.

In the northern latitudes of the continental U.S. and in much of Canada, carpenter ants are the most common insect wood destroyer, surpassing even the mighty termite. But while many commercially available chemical pesticides will rid a structure of carpenter ants, homeowners are increasingly steering away from such toxins proven to impact the human nervous, respiratory and reproductive systems.

Perhaps the most economical and effective way to get rid of carpenter ants is by applying boric acid (also known as borax) to their nest sites and surroundings. This natural non-toxic element, mined from below the Mojave Desert in southern California, has a long history of use in exterminating brazen populations of cockroaches, palmetto bugs, waterbugs, silverfish, termites, and, you guessed it, carpenter ants.

Al Abruzzese, owner of the website Al’s Home Improvement Center, swears by boric acid to get rid of wood-boring pests. “This simple inexpensive, household chemical is deadly to all insects,” he says. “It has been shown to attack their nervous systems, as well as being a drying agent to their bodies.”

Beyond just being effective as an all-natural insecticide, boric acid is non-toxic to humans. Abruzzese says it is safe enough to use around children—it has been used in ointments and salves for diaper rash on babies in the past—and can be an important part of eyewash solutions as well, albeit in very diluted form (don’t try it at home). One common brand name to look for is Nisus Bora-Care, but any pesticide with boric acid or borax listed as an active ingredient will do just fine.

For those not into do-it-yourself pest control, calling in an exterminator that uses all natural products is a good option. Oregon’s All Natural Pest Elimination, for instance, services the entire four state region of the Pacific Northwest with products from Natureline—crafted from safe botanical extracts and essential oils, not synthetic chemicals—on all of its extermination jobs. Look in the yellow pages for exterminators in your area, and call each one you are considering to make sure they stay away from noxious chemicals.


Dear EarthTalk: What is “cogeneration” as a means of providing heat and power?
-- Jerry Schleup, Andover, MA

Cogeneration—also known as combined heat and power, distributed generation, or recycled energy—is the simultaneous production of two or more forms of energy from a single fuel source. Cogeneration power plants often operate at 50 to 70 percent higher efficiency rates than single-generation facilities.

In practical terms, what cogeneration usually entails is the use of what would otherwise be wasted heat (such as a manufacturing plant’s exhaust) to produce additional energy benefit, such as to provide heat or electricity for the building in which it is operating. Cogeneration is great for the bottom line and also for the environment, as recycling the waste heat saves other pollutant-spewing fossil fuels from being burned.

Most of the thousands of cogeneration plants operating across the United States and Canada are small facilities operated by non-utility companies and by institutions like universities and the military. For small cogeneration plants—those that generate anywhere from one to 20 megawatts of power—biomass or even methane from garbage dumps can be used as a front-end fuel source, but natural gas is far more common as the primary input.

For instance, Sunnyvale, California-based Network Appliance Inc., a computer networking company, relies on a one megawatt natural gas-powered cogeneration system to power the building’s extensive air conditioning needs, and for back-up power for use during peak demand times. The company estimates it saves around $300,000 a year in energy costs thanks to the cogeneration system.

In another example, Illinois-based Epcor USA Ventures operates three mid-sized (25 megawatts and up) cogeneration power plants in San Diego to power U.S. Marine Corps and Navy bases there. All three plants work in the same way: Natural gas turbines drive electrical generators that in turn exhaust hot gases. These are then captured to drive a steam generator hooked into the bases centralized heating and cooling systems. Since the systems generate power to spare, Epcor is talking with area companies about kicking in for a share of the steam to keep their energy bills and carbon footprints in check.

Cogeneration is not limited to stationary power plants. Honda is exploring the use of a specialized automotive cogeneration generator designed to improve the overall efficiency of hybrid vehicles by recapturing waste exhaust heat from the internal combustion engine and converting it to electricity to recharge the battery pack. The idea is still in the research and development phase, it could make its way into new cars within a few years, further improving on the already impressive efficiency of hybrid cars.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881 or submit by e-mail to earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

EarthTalk Column Debuts On Go Green

Editor's Note: We're pleased to have syndicated columnist Doug Moss' column EarthTalk: Question and Answers About Our Environment appearing weekly on the Go Green blog. You can submit questions to Doug via the email and website links below and you just might see an answer posted here. Moss, an eco-expert, also runs the environmentally focused emagazine.com.


Dear EarthTalk: I’ve heard that there are plans to build a large repository for nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but that plans have been slow and are very controversial. Where is our nuclear waste kept now and what dangers does it pose?
-- Miriam Clark, Reno, NV

Plans to store the majority of our nation’s spent nuclear fuel and other highly radioactive waste at a central repository underneath Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert 80 miles from Las Vegas were first hatched in the mid-1980s. But the project has languished primarily due to opposition from Nevadans who don’t want to import such dangerous materials into their backyard. Critics of the plan also point out that various natural forces such as erosion and earthquakes could render the site unstable and thus unsuitable to store nuclear isotopes that can remain hazardous to humans for hundreds of thousands of years to come.

But the Bush administration is keen to jump-start the project and recently submitted a construction license application to develop the facility—which when completed could hold up to 300 million pounds of nuclear waste—with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In announcing the filing, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman said that the facility being proposed can “stand up to any challenge anywhere,” adding that issues of health safety have been a primary concern during the planning process.

But the administration has still not submitted a crucial document declaring how protective the facility will be with regard to radiation leakage. Bush’s Environmental Protection Agency concluded that the facility needs to prevent radiation leakage for up to 10,000 years. But a federal judge ruled that to be inadequate and ordered the administration to require protection for up to one million years. The White House argues that the NRC should press on with its review process and that the standard can be settled on later.

Currently, without any central repository, nuclear waste generated in the U.S. is stored at or near one of the 121 facilities across the country where it is generated. Nevadans like Democratic Senator Harry Reid, who has doggedly opposed the Yucca Mountain repository, say it makes more sense to leave such waste where it is than to risk transporting it across the nation’s public highways and rail system, during which accidents or even terrorist attacks could expose untold numbers of Americans to radioactivity.

But others say that the current system, or lack thereof, leaves Americans at great risk of radioactive exposure. The non-profit Nuclear Information and Resource Service concluded in a 2007 report that tons of radioactive waste were ending up in landfills and in some cases in consumer products, thanks to loopholes in a 2000 federal ban on recycling metal that had been exposed to radioactivity.

As with all issues surrounding nuclear technology, where and how to dispose of the wastes is complicated. While some environmental leaders now cautiously support development of more nuclear reactors (which are free of fossil fuels) to help stave off climate change, others remain concerned that the risks to human health and the environment are still too high to go down that road. Whether or not the NRC approves plans for Yucca Mountain won’t resolve the larger debate, of course, but perhaps the greenlighting of other promising alternative energy sources could ultimately make nuclear power unnecessary altogether.


Dear EarthTalk: Summer’s going to be a scorcher this year, and I’d like to know how I can keep cool indoors without just running my energy-hogging air conditioners all the time. Any tips?
-- John McGovern, Cohasset, MA

According to Harvey Sachs of the non-profit American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the movement of air over the skin is what’s key to keeping the body cool. So instead of turning on that A.C., see which direction the breeze is blowing outside (no matter how minimal it may be), and then open a few windows strategically to try to get it flowing through the house from end-to-end or side-to-side.

If the breeze alone isn’t enough, apply some fan power. Even small tabletop fans, which can be had for $30 or so at Target and similar stores, can really whip the air around. Placing one facing in by the window where air is coming in, and one at an opposite window positioned to blow warm air out, can create a nice “wind tunnel” effect in pulling air through the house.

This strategy can be especially effective at night when it is cooler. But then it’s important to shut the windows when you leave for the day in the morning to keep the cooler air in and the warmth of the new day out. Keep blinds shut and curtains drawn, too, as sunlight pouring into the house only creates more heat. And remember that lights left on are not only wasting electricity—they’re creating heat, as well.

Ceiling fans also do a nice job of circulating air in the rooms you occupy most, and though they do require some up-front costs for installation they use only about 1/30th the electricity of a room air conditioner.

Beyond moving the air around to keep cool, the website WikiHow.com lists several tips for using water to keep cool sans AC. One tried and true method is to wet your wrists and other pulse points with cold water, and then keep those spots cool by holding an ice cube wrapped in a face cloth against them. The relief is immediate, and this method will cool down the entire body—by as much as three degrees Fahrenheit—for upwards of an hour. Another WikiHow suggestion: Wear a short-sleeved shirt and keep the sleeves wet with cold water (from a squirt bottle, faucet or hose). Keeping the pant legs of long pants wet is also a good way to keep your legs cool. Add in a breeze or a fan, and you can actually get cold.

Of course, if you just can’t live without air conditioning, there are greener options out there. For starters, a single window unit that keeps one room cool is far less energy intensive and polluting than central air conditioning that keeps all the rooms in the house (including those you’re not using) cool. Look for new models sporting the federal Energy Star label, which marks units as energy efficient.

Another option for those in hot, dry climates is an evaporative cooler, which cools outdoor air through evaporation and blows it inside the house. These units make for a nice alternative to traditional central air conditioning, as they cost about half as much to install and use only one quarter of the energy overall.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EARTHTALK, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881 or submit your question to earthtalk@emagazine.com.