3. Here's another update from January 2008 about plastic bag politics--to ban or not to ban? Australia is currently leaning toward banning them. I'm skeptical that bags are such a large percentage of the issue, though any issue that demotes plastic frameworks is good given the lipophilic and long term pollution and (in many cases) endocrine system disruptions in living things with the chemicals in it.
"A system of voluntary compliance would work better, according to Mr Evans," who is connected to the retailer's political organization.
Think about Schnaiberg's dynamics here and what position Evans is in to encourage consumptive expansion/withdrawals from the environment more and more pollution, etc. Re-read last week's blog entry from Lee Hea Joung as well. It is about plastic bags.
A related question is can we use other materials that more sustainable? It is really required to use plastic (or to destroy the environment) to expand the economy, as Schnaiberg argues?
What if we utilized organic hemp fiber production for bags and other throwaway items? Hemp Produces FOUR Times A Much Paper As Trees: "Dupont established itself as the world leader in synthetic fibres, with such new inventions as Nylon and Raylon, with the aid of the global outlawing of one of the most useful natural fibres, hemp. This was achieved in the US by the1937 Marijuana Transfer (Tax) Act, which was passed in the same year DuPont patented both nylon and the polluting wood-pulp sulfide (sulfur dioxide) process used to make paper. The Act was the result of political pressure and a sustained propaganda campaign by du Pont and logging and oil companies."]
I would argue that particular material flows are more important to analyze than deductive models like Schnaiberg's. Though Schnaiberg's organizational views against Malthusian views are important to consider, because I think he is right there. I will have a small handout (four pages from his 1994 book) about Schnaiberg's views against Malthusianism to hand out in class this week.
--------------------
Plastic Bags: Charging V Banning Reply to this message http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,2 3031272-5005962,00.html
PLASTIC bags may be banned from Australia by the end of the year, under plans being considered by Environment Minister Peter Garrett.
The federal government is looking to either impose a levy on each bag, or ban the bags outright, according to Fairfax.
A spokesman for Mr Garrett said he would move to phase out the bags by the end of the year, after consulting with state governments in March.
Australia uses about four billion plastic bags a year, with most ending up in landfill.
The proposal has been lauded by environmentalists, but major supermarkets are against a ban.
"It's just a simplification to contemplate banning plastic bags just because people see them floating in the water," Australian Retailers Association executive director Richard Evans said.
A system of voluntary compliance would work better, according to Mr Evans.
for more on the battle over social construction of the issue; banning plastic bags or just ignoring the issue. There seems to be already an amazing 100,000+ examples of this story around. I don't know who penned the original story.
This is an article about a car marathon of a hydrogen-fuelled BOC GH2OST (an eco-car like EV1) competing with petrol-driven vehicles to prove that energy efficiency of fuel cells is superior to petrol. An interesting point is that the car test was held by Shell, one of the world's major gasoline corporation. Also, it was industrial gases supplier BOC that has developed the car's hydrogen fuel supply system. I thought this was opposite to the EV1 case, because oil companies were one of the suspects who 'killed' the electric cars in California whereas in this case, it is them who actually support the non-petrol-using cars.
-----------------------------------
The makers of a Scottish-built eco-friendly car are hoping to smash the record for efficient fuel consumption. The hydrogen-fuelled BOC GH2OST, which was manufactured in Aberdeen, is almost silent and the only waste product is water.
The car showcases the technologies that could herald the end of the road for petrol-driven vehicles.
It will be driven by Claudia Woon, 24, alongside petrol engines competing to beat the current 10,705-mile per gallon record for efficient fuel consumption.
The road test will take place on Saturday at the Shell Eco-Marathon Challenge being held at the Grampian Transport Museum in Aberdeenshire.
The lightweight vehicle weighs 100kg, including driver Claudia, and has a top speed of 25km/h.
The project is being masterminded by Kenny Stewart from Aberdeen, who has extensive experience of constructing ultra lightweight eco-marathon cars, and Dave McGrath of Scottish commercial fuel cell company siGEN Limited.
Industrial gases supplier BOC has developed the car's hydrogen fuel supply system. The company's John Carolin said: "Imagine a world with no road noise, pollution or petrol queues.
"It sounds unbelievable, but this is not science fiction thanks partly to the hard work of Scottish-based companies.
"By 2020 many of the world's drivers could be taking to the road in cars fuelled by hydrogen.
"The BOC GH2OST can go around the world on the equivalent of two-and-a half gallons. It is almost silent and is emission free. In effect it is a prototype for all cars of the future."
Mr Carolin added: "We are confident we will prove the energy efficiency of fuel cells is superior to petrol - and that hydrogen is extremely practical and safe as a fuel."
The car will be go on show at this autumn's Grove Fuel Cell Symposium in London, before going on permanent display at the Grampian Transport Museum.
3. People want newfuel. New fuel must clean and don't pollute the air. Several years ago I saw the biofuel in TV. In Europe many country used biofuel, and that fuel was introduced very clean. But this article tell us biofuel is not clean fuel perfectly. Because biofuels need ground. According to a pair of studies published in the journal Science recently, biofuels may not fulfill that promise — and in fact, may be worse for the climate than the fossil fuels they're meant to supplement. According to researchers at Princeton University and the Nature Conservancy, almost all the biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels. First I think this article was writtened by oil company, But cause proper that opinion. So we must consider to alternative fuel.
---------------- Maybe it was simply too good to be true. For proponents, biofuels — petroleum substitutes made from plant matter like corn or sugar cane — seemed to promise everything. Using biofuels rather than oil would reduce the greenhouse gases that accelerate global warming, because plants absorb carbon dioxide when they grow, balancing out the carbon released when burned in cars or trucks. Using homegrown biofuels would help the U.S. reduce its utter dependence on foreign oil, and provide needed income for rural farmers around the world. And unlike cars powered purely by electric batteries or hydrogen fuel cells — two alternate technologies that have yet to pan out — biofuels could be used right now.
But according to a pair of studies published in the journal Science recently, biofuels may not fulfill that promise — and in fact, may be worse for the climate than the fossil fuels they're meant to supplement. According to researchers at Princeton University and the Nature Conservancy, almost all the biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels, if the full environmental cost of producing them is factored in. As virgin land is converted for growing biofuels, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere; at the same time, biofuel crops themselves are much less effective at absorbing carbon than the natural forests or grasslands they may be replacing. "When land is converted from natural ecosystems it releases carbon," says Joseph Fargione, a lead author of one of the papers and a scientist at the Nature Conservancy. "Any climate change policy that doesn't take this fact into account doesn't work."
Many environmentalists have been making the case against biofuels for some time, arguing that biofuel production takes valuable agricultural land away from food, driving up the price of staple crops like corn. But the Science papers make a more sweeping argument. In their paper, Fargione's team calculated the "carbon debt" created by raising biofuel crops — the amount of carbon released in the process of converting natural landscapes into cropland. They found that corn ethanol produced in the U.S. had a carbon debt of 93 years, meaning it would take nearly a century for ethanol, which does produce fewer greenhouse gases when burned than fossil fuels, to make up for the carbon released in that initial landscape conversion. Palm tree biodiesel in Indonesia and Malaysia — one of the most controversial biofuels currently in use, because of its connection to tropical deforestation in those countries — has a carbon debt of 86 years. Soybean biodiesel in the Amazonian rainforest has a debt of 320 years. "People don't realize there is three times as much carbon in plants and soil than there is in the air," says Fargione. "Cut down forests, burn them, churn the soil, and you release all the carbon that's been stored."
Worse, as demand for biofuels go up — the European Union alone targets 5.75% of all its transport fuel to come from biofuel by the end of the year — the price of crops rises. That in turn encourages farmers to clear virgin land and plant more crops, releasing even more carbon in a vicious cycle. For instance, as the U.S. uses more biodiesel, much of which is made from soybeans or palm oil, farmers in Brazil or Indonesia will clear more land to raise soybeans to replace those used for fuel. "When we ask the world's farmers to feed 6 billion people and ask them to produce fuel, that requires them to use additional land," says Fargione. "That land has to come from somewhere."
Industry groups like the Renewable Fuels Association criticized the studies for being too simplistic, and failing to put biofuels in context. And it's true that the switch to biofuels can have benefits that go beyond climate change. Biofuels tend to produce less local pollution than fossil fuels, one reason why Brazil — which gets 30% of its automobile fuel from sugar-cane ethanol — has managed to reduce once stifling air pollution. In the U.S., switching to domestically produced biofuels helps cut dependence on foreign oil, and boosts income for farmers. But in all of these cases, the benefits now seem to pale next to the climate change deficits. Fargione points out that if the U.S. managed to use 15 billion gallons of ethanol by 2015 — as is mandated in last year's energy bill — it would still only offset 7% of projected energy demand. That won't put Venezuela or Iran out of business.
This is all depressing news, especially if you're a corn farmer. Biofuels are one of the few alternative fuels that are actually available right now, but the evidence suggests we be better off not relying on them. But even Fargione doesn't argue that we should ditch biofuels altogether. Biofuels using waste matter — like wood chips, or the leftover sections of corn stalks — or from perennial plants like switchgrass, effectively amount to free fuel, because they don't require clearing additional land. "There's no carbon debt," notes Fargione. Unfortunately, the technology for yielding fuel from those sources — like cellulosic biofuels — is still in its infancy, though it is improving fast. In the end, the right kind of biofuel won't be a silver bullet, but just one more tool in the growing arsenal against climate change.
2.General Motors to launch rechargeable car by 2010
3.This article caught my eyes instantly because its direct relation to the film we’d been watching in the class last week.
GM finally announced the plan to put out the electric car, named Volt in the market! EV1 and the battery that was used in EV1 were mentioned in the article, however still there was no explanation as to why the first successful electric car had to be scrapped.
At least they admitted the consumers see GM as the home of the Hummer, a gas-drinking machine, and they want to win back the consumers. --------------- General Motors to launch rechargeable car by 2010
Reuters Fri, Apr 4 10:19 AM
General Motors Corp on Thursday showed off its progress in developing the highly anticipated Chevrolet Volt and detailed its road map for bringing the rechargeable car to the market by 2010, an ambitious timeline challenged by some rivals.
"We are moving with incredible speed," said Frank Weber, GM's vehicle line executive in charge of the Volt. "This project is not concept work. This program is not theory. It is reality."
Weber said GM's senior executives remain committed to launching the Volt by November 2010, calling the plug-in hybrid the "No. 1 priority project that we have now within GM."
GM, which is counting on the high-mileage Volt to leapfrog Toyota Motor Corp's market-leading hybrid Prius, on Thursday opened its battery research labs and design studio to dozens of journalists and analysts.
The automaker's unusual open-door policy is part of an effort to show a commitment to the electric car technology many environmental advocates see as the best hope to cut oil use and greenhouse gas emissions. GM also wants to win back consumers it lost because of its reputation as the home of the Hummer.
The Volt is being designed to run 40 miles powered by a 400-pound, T-shaped lithium-ion battery pack that will be cooled by a liquid system to keep it from overheating. That battery pack is shorter and only weighs a third as much as the nickel metal-hydride battery featured in GM's now-scrapped EV1 electric car, subject of the 2006 documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?"
The Volt marks the first attempt to adapt lithium-ion batteries, widely used in electronics, for a car, although Toyota is racing ahead with its own work on the same technology.
In its labs, GM is testing dueling battery packs, one supplied by a subsidiary of Korea's LG Chem Ltd and the other built by a division of German auto parts supplier Continental AG using technology developed by Massachusetts-based A123 Systems.
The goal, GM said, is to ensure that it has a battery that can run at least 150,000 miles, last 10 years and allow drivers to accelerate to 60-miles-per-hour in less than 9 seconds.
Roland Matthe, a manager in GM's battery group, said the competing packs were neck-and-neck in tests meant to simulate driving in conditions ranging from Alaska cold to Arizona heat. "If you look at the data they look very similar," Matthe said.
GM has been quietly testing Volt-like technology in a maroon 2005 Chevrolet Malibu sedan at its Milford, Michigan proving track since last year and will began bolting the new batteries into vehicles for track testing this month.
"We've already learned a lot about how this battery behaves," said Michael Bly, GM's director of hybrid vehicle integration.
REMEMBER THE GAS TANK? Among the challenges GM is still grappling with is how to treat an unusual problem: the risk that gas in the Volt's specially pressurized, low-emission tank goes unused.
A gas engine will kick in to recharge the Volt battery as necessary, but with short trips and frequent recharging at a standard outlet some drivers may seldom need fuel.
GM, which has tweaked its global small-car platform for the Volt, could tune its proprietary drive-train software to kick in and burn off gas if needed to prevent engine damage.
Another problem: the first design GM showed off for the Volt at the 2007 Detroit auto show was too boxy and aggressively styled up front to cut through the wind and boost the vehicle's battery-only range.
"We jokingly said it was the electric Camaro," said Volt design director Bob Boniface. "It was the fist in the wind."
After extensive wind-tunnel testing, GM designers rounded the front corners on the Volt and gave it a higher and bigger spoiler. Relatively small aerodynamic improvements have boosted the electric range by more than half a mile, Boniface said.
Meanwhile, GM engineers are counting on braking to capture energy that will deliver some 20 percent of the power needed for the Volt's 40-mile battery range. Without any braking -- in perfectly traffic-free highway driving -- the range would be closer to 32 miles, GM engineers said. ---- http://in.news.yahoo.com/financialexpress/20080404/r_t_fe_tc/ttc-general-motors-to-launch-rechargeabl-aa05ada_1.html
2. Questions from the case "Who killed the electronic car?"
3. We learned the theory of Treadmill, and looked at the case "EV1 made by GM". From that case, we could learn the organizational problems involved to environment. Even though we can not know exactly which entities made EV1 dead, we can mostly agree that political pressure existed between each entities: state, company, and citizen.
Since my listening comprehension is poor, I think I understood something very vaguely and lost some points. There are my questions
Q1. Throughout the film, I heared repeatdely that treadmill is connected to specific material in the case of Eclectronic car. Here when we mention "material", does it mean just oil and electricity? This politic happens because of the invisible struggle between oil party and electricity party (I mean companies and the people who get profits from there)
or.. does the "material" mean something elase? Later on, I thought that is is related to Battery stuff. (But, I am not sure~ just gessing!)
Q2. According to the people who consumed the electronic car, they said that GM did not listen to citizen, care about their consumers, and did not make production facilitate. What does this mean? I did not understand from which context this conroversial came out.
In addition, they(GM) did not sell cars out of small area, California. I did not understand why they did. (In this part, did I lose some arguements or nobody knows the reason? )Probably, this would be the same question of all consumers who support Electronic car. Secret by GM. No answer...
Q3. I have a question about Citizen party in Schnaiberg theory. I did not understand well the deal between monopoly company and citizen - labor worker in original theory. Vaguely I remember that company provides many working postions to citizens, then citizen cooperate to support company to expand their production. Is that right? I want to more specific arguement.^^
Q3-1. In the Eclectronic car case, 80 people gathered to realize themselves about the severeness of environmental degradation and the necessity of electronic car. So, it looks a bit different from the Schnaiberg theory. But why didn't they meet earlier to make Electronic car live? I mean... people who thought electronic car is helpful and have a mind to support, didn't they take actions for environmental justice?
Q4. From several suspects, I did not catch the arguement of Battery. We saw the grandfather who made Electronic car's battery. I did not catch this part well. (Probably,the context is..)Oil company purchased the battery technology to prevent Electronic car. But I think I heard that GM also purchased something and GM did not advertise something.. I don't know what these somethings mean.
Sorry for many questions. Looking at the film " Electronic car" was very interesting even though there was some difficulties to understand. I thought that we should not be confined to the theoretical framework because the real world's case is more variable and unpredictable.
3. Wow! Here we have similar news from GM, the Hydrogen Car~! After glancing at this article, I was somehow glad and worried to hear the news.
The article said that Hydrogen car only emit and make water, and explains many mechanisms of the vehicle. However, what I thought is that the GM should make their great effort to advetise the car and fascinate the consumers's mind in diverse way. I think people will support the car with the reason of environmental issue. Even though there can be some kind of political attack from other entities, they can survive and achieve the production of sustainable vehicles with the huge support of citizens, consumers!
People can cooperate and they can make world go forward to develop in sustainable way!^^
------------------------------
Hybrids are now an accepted part of our vehicle landscape, with electric cars powered by lithium-ion batteries on the horizon. But General Motors and other manufacturers are also looking much further ahead, toward a future where our personal transport—what we might call “a car”—is powered exclusively by hydrogen fuel cells.
GM has spent a decade working on fuel-cell cars, with several concept vehicles along the way: the HydroGen1 of 2000, and the AUTOnomy and HyWire concepts revealed in 2002. The most recent push came five years ago from CEO Rick Wagoner’s challenge to Larry Burns, GM’s global head of research and development: Completely reinvent the automobile for the 21st century, unburdened by any legacy technologies.
In Burn’s words, GM wants to “take the automobile out of the environmental debate.” With emissions of nothing more than water vapor, hydrogen fuel cells eliminate carbon fuels altogether. That is, they eliminate them from the vehicle. Instead, the debate over the types of energy used to generate hydrogen shifts from GM and other carmakers to the natural resources and power industries.
GM’s latest fuel-cell car, the Sequel concept, was unveiled at Detroit’s January 2005 North American International Auto Show. Less than two years later, it’s a drivable prototype (two of them, actually), now called the Chevrolet Sequel. Last week, GM let selected journalists—among them this Spectrum reporter—drive it within the guarded confines of the U.S. Marine Corps' Camp Pendleton in California.
Tanks: A Lot
Outside, the Sequel is a sleek, stylish SUV. You wouldn’t give it a second glance at the mall parking lot. But underneath, it has little in common with today’s cars beyond wheels and tires. Its “skateboard” aluminum chassis is built around three long, heavily reinforced canisters that hold 8 kg of hydrogen. That mass of hydrogen contains the same energy as 8 gallons of gasoline, though GM’s latest fuel cell uses energy twice as efficiently as a gas engine.
The 73-kW fuel cell in the Sequel is a sealed box in which hydrogen passes through a membrane to react with oxygen, producing water and giving off energy. It’s that energy that powers the three electric motors that move the vehicle: One 65-kW motor in the front, plus individual 3-phase permanent-magnet 25-kW wheel motors at the rear. Total traction power is thus 115 kW. Those rear motors also act as generators, so when a driver hits the brakes, energy that would have been lost is used to recharge a 65-kW lithium-ion battery pack stored within the “skateboard” between the rear wheels.
The steering wheel, accelerator, and brake pedal aren’t mechanically connected to the wheels or powertrain. Instead, a set of computer processors evaluates what you asked for—and then tells the car how to do it most efficiently. This “by wire” control technology not only reduces weight by eliminating mechanical components, it also maximizes safety by letting the car weigh what it’s being asked to do against external factors (such as traffic, weather, vehicle proximity, etc.).
Behind the Wheel
Having drive-by-wire controls means driving the Sequel runs the risk of feeling like a video game—compelling but not quite “real.” But in fact, GM’s engineers (spread across Warren, Mich.; Honeyoye Falls, N.Y.; Torrance, Calif.; and Mainz Kastel, Germany) did so much simulation work to make it feel real that … it actually does.
Behind the wheel, it drives and steers like a heavy SUV: Press the accelerator, and it accelerates. Turn the wheel, and it changes direction. The only difference is that the slight whine of the electric motors increases continuously—there’s no change in engine note as the transmission shifts, because there’s no transmission. And the brake-pedal feel is so natural that I completely forgot I wasn’t getting feedback through a hydraulic system but an electric simulation using pistons and quite a lot of software.
The Sequel weighs 2170 kg (4774 lb), at the high end of the range for a 4-to-5-seat SUV. It will do the 0-to-60-mph sprint in less than 10 seconds, with a top speed of 145 km/h (90 mph). Most important is its range of 300 miles (480 km)—like a normal car—meaning that the Sequel travels roughly twice as far on the same energy content as a conventionally powered SUV.
We won’t see Sequels at our dealerships any time soon, though. Each of these concept cars probably costs one million dollars or more, although “productionizing”—figuring out how to lower weight, reduce complexity, cut costs, and improve reliability—is a standard part of technology innovation. As the shape of the world’s hydrogen infrastructure becomes clearer over the next decade, the component costs will fall and carmakers will know more about how fuel cells perform in the real world.
Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore praises Quebec's environmental record
I totally agree that CO2 tax can make CO2 visible to the economy. And I was impressed by last part of this article. Yes, definitely, it should be. I believe government’s tax policies also make can visible many things, such as who is real good contributor in the process of dealing with Climate Change, how much harmful a lot of aviation traffic to the clean air, and how we can contribute, as individual, tackling the environmental degradation. However, the problem is, as everyone knows, this powerful tools are abuse or use improperly by the dark, invisible hand of powerful group in the world of politics and business for hiding the truth, their profit and proper action to deal with real problem. Well, by the way, last Friday, I was in a conference for discussing environmental issues with various people have various backgrounds. At Plaza hotel, most expensive site in Korea, all of members are sitting under the luxurious chandeliers (all of these are sparkling!), and talking not so quite related environmental issues.... I was little confused… disappointed and uncomfortable. I thought that kind of situation is not compatible to their saying, will or purpose of meeting. After all, I just suggested with considering the dignity of that function, “If nobody feeling inconvenience, please… do diminish illumination, just a bit”. How awful it is. As SOUND one of youth in Korea especially caring our mother earth, this experience gave to me a lot of responsibility… I hope all of you are felt same. ----------------------------------- Sunday, April 6, 2008 MONTREAL: Asked what he thought of Canada' environmental record, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore joked Saturday he was trying to stay out of politics. "I am going to try to stay out of Canadian politics — I'm even trying to stay out of U.S. politics these days," Gore said to chuckles. The environmental crusader was in the French-speaking city Montreal to train 220 Canadians on how to host slideshow seminars adapted from his acclaimed documentary film, "An Inconvenient Truth." Although Gore was mum about how the country's environmental record measured up on a whole, he was praised Quebec's environmental policies. "Quebec has been the first province to adopt a CO2 tax, which is generally considered to be the single most sensible and effective policy response," said Gore, who won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the global-warming issue. "You know, CO2 is invisible and tasteless and odorless and it comes with no price tag, so it's invisible to the economy. Gore said he would like to see a CO2 tax in the United States so it becomes "visible to the economy." A CO2 tax, also known as a carbon tax, is imposed on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. They are typically tied to use of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas and are designed to create and incentive to use alternative sources of energy like wind or hydrogen. "Quebec has begun to do that," Gore said. "Now, British Columbia has also done it. Quebec has taken other steps that are to be commended also." Quebec's carbon tax, which took effect last year, directs revenues to initiatives supporting green technology and was created to help the province reach Kyoto Protocol targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to below 1990 levels by 2012. Last month, Canada's Conservative government released details of their greenhouse gas reduction plan, which they say will result in a 20 percent drop in emissions from 2006 levels by 2020. But the country has not met the greenhouse gas reduction goal set by the Kyoto Protocol, an international framework for reducing greenhouse gases that Canada ratified in 2002. But Gore did not criticize Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government. "As for Canada as a whole, again, I am going to try to stay out of Canadian politics," he said. "This is not, or should not be, a political issue. This is a moral issue. It's an ethical issue. It's a spiritual issue in that we have to decide who we are as a people," he said. ------------ http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/06/america/NA-GEN-Canada-Al-Gore.php
2. Oil reserve site raises ire, Bush policy tested
3. Bush administration is trying to have "environmentally friendly" energy development. However many people are questioning it. Now the policy is under attack in a towm in Mississippi and residents are worrying about the policy. Here again, government policy is against to local residents and environmental groups.
-----------------------------------
The Bush administration says it favors "environmentally friendly" energy development, but that policy is under attack in a Mississippi town where residents worry a planned emergency oil reserve may drain a river, destroy wetlands and harm Gulf of Mexico fishing areas.
There is fear the Energy Department's plan to carve out underground salt caverns in Richton, Mississippi, to hold some 160 million barrels of crude oil could be the worst environmental disaster to hit the state since Hurricane Katrina.
The government's decision to pick Richton as the fifth storage site in expanding the country's Strategic Petroleum Reserve was touted as a $4 billion economic boost for a state still suffering from being sideswiped by Katrina.
The Energy Department said the oil site will be constructed in an "environmentally friendly" manner, but many residents and environmental groups feel that is just government-speak.
"That's an absolute joke, there is nothing environmentally friendly about this project," said Steve Shepard, Gulf Coast director for the Sierra Club's Mississippi chapter. "They want to ram it down our throats."
The strategic reserve, created by Congress after the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo, is the largest stockpile of government-owned crude in the world. It now holds a record 701 million barrels of oil at four locations in Texas and Louisiana.
The Department of Energy is boosting the reserve to 1 billion barrels, as Congress mandated, by adding Richton and expanding two existing sites. Richton was chosen because it is less vulnerable to hurricanes but close to a major pipeline system and the Gulf of Mexico for easy oil deliveries.
But many locals are horrified the government may drain 50 million gallons of water a day from the Pascagoula River for five years to dissolve the salt in the caverns. The resulting brine is to be carried away in a pipeline -- which the Energy Department admits will probably leak many times -- and dumped into the Gulf of Mexico not far from the state's coastline.
Many area residents feel they were left in the dark about the project after the Energy Department held public hearings on the storage site about 110 miles away in the state capital of Jackson shortly after Katrina hit.
"Very few people knew about the hearings," said Becky Stowe, director of stewardship for the Mississippi chapter of the Nature Conservancy. "People down here didn't have phones" after the hurricane, she said.
WERE STUDIES DONE?
Stowe said the Nature Conservancy, which protects land near the salt caverns, hasn't taken a position on the site but it is worried the government has not carried out the proper studies.
DOE spokeswoman Megan Barnett said the department conducted an extensive review of the Richton site and "will ensure environmental and ecological protections" are in place.
Still, facing a citizen rebellion and several concerned Mississippi lawmakers, the Energy Department last month said it would conduct another review of the storage site and hold a new round of public meetings which will start next week. This time the meetings will be closer to Richton.
Much of the environmental concerns about the project center on taking the 50 million gallons a day from the Pascagoula River. The river is home to endangered species, flows at low levels at certain times and is already used by industries.
"We may not have enough water in the river," said Eric Richards with the grass-roots Gulf Conservation Coalition.
He wants the government to build a longer pipeline to pull water from the Mississippi River, which has a bigger flow. DOE says the Pascagoula river's water level could be lowered only 1 inch under its plan.
There is also worry the brine, 10 times saltier than Gulf water, would leak from the pipeline as it crosses over fragile wetlands.
"It would kill them," said Stowe. "There's no doubt it's going to leak." Indeed, the government said it expects the pipeline will have around four dozen leaks over five years.
With some remote wetlands, leaks won't likely be found for days and then the damage will be done. "Somebody is going to be out fishing and they'll start seeing dead fish," said Shepard.
DOE plans to bring to the public meetings a jar of the caverns' brine, which it says looks and flows like water, to show it won't be a thick slurry and ease citizen concerns.
Richards suggests the government skip the removal pipeline and pump the brine deep underground in other salt caverns in the area. That would also avoid dumping it in the Gulf near valuable shrimping areas.
The Energy Department said it expects to issue the draft of its second environmental impact statement on the project in late autumn.
2. Coca-Cola Charged with Groundwater Depletion and Pollution in India
3. Coca-Cola makes people drink unhealthy soda and also create thirst because of lack of water. From few decades to now, people have bought water. Before that situation, we did not think about the fact we buy water to drink safe water. In addition, people in India might find water to live their lives. It is not only drinking water but also living water like washing their bodies. Even though people think just only their interest and profit, we must have our responsibility to live with environment. -------------------------------------- Coca-Cola bottling plants may be taking groundwater from local villages Dear EarthTalk: I heard that Coca-Cola is depleting groundwater around bottling plants in India so surrounding villages have no safe water supply? Is this true? --Dan Ehl, Centerville, IA An ongoing drought has threatened groundwater supplies across India, and many villagers in rural areas are blaming Coca-Cola for aggravating the problem. Coca-Cola operates 52 water-intensive bottling plants in India. In the southern Indian village of Plachimada in Kerala state, for example, persistent droughts have dried up groundwater and local wells, forcing many residents to rely on water supplies trucked in daily by the government. Groundwater Problem Began Several Years Ago Some there link the lack of groundwater to the arrival of a Coca-Cola bottling plant in the area three years ago. Following several large protests, the local government revoked Coca-Cola’s license to operate last year, and ordered the company to shut down its $25 million plant. Similar groundwater problems have plagued the company in the rural Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, where farming is the primary industry. Several thousand residents took part in a 10-day march in 2004 between two Coca-Cola bottling plants thought to be depleting groundwater. “Drinking Coke is like drinking farmer’s blood in India,” said protest organizer Nandlal Master. “Coca-Cola is creating thirst in India, and is directly responsible for the loss of livelihood and even hunger for thousands of people across India,” added Master, who represents the India Resource Center in the campaign against Coca-Cola. Indeed, one report, in the daily newspaper Mathrubhumi, described local women having to travel five kilometers (three miles) to obtain drinkable water, during which time soft drinks would come out of the Coca-Cola plant by the truckload. Coca-Cola Offers Sludge "Fertilizer" and Beverages with Pesticides Groundwater isn’t the only issue. The Central Pollution Control Board of India found in 2003 that sludge from Coca-Cola’s Uttar Pradesh factory was contaminated with high levels of cadmium, lead and chromium. To make matters worse, Coca-Cola was offloading cadmium-laden waste sludge as “free fertilizer” to tribal farmers who live near the plant, prompting questions as to why they would do that but not provide clean water to local residents whose underground supplies were being “stolen.” Another Indian nonprofit group, the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), says it tested 57 carbonated beverages made by Coca-Cola and Pepsi at 25 bottling plants and found a “cocktail of between three to five different pesticides in all samples.” CSE Director Sunita Narain, winner of the 2005 Stockholm Water Prize, described the group’s findings as “a grave public health scandal.” Coca-Cola Responds to Charges of Pollution and Groundwater Depletion For its part, Coca-Cola says that “a small number of politically motivated groups” are going after the company “for the furtherance of their own anti-multinational agenda.” It denies that its actions in India have contributed to depleting local aquifers, and calls allegations “without any scientific basis.” --------------------------------------- http://environment.about.com/od/waterpollution/a/groundwater_ind.htm?p=1
A very down to earth* kind of guy. I'm an environmental sociologist interested in establishing material and organizational sustainability worldwide. I'm always looking for interesting materials/technologies, inspiring ideas, or institutional examples of sustainability to inspire others to recognize their choices now. To be fatalistic about an unsustainable world is a sign of a captive mind, given all our options.
*(If "earth" is defined in a planetary sense, concerning comparative historical knowledge and interest in the past 10,000 years or so anywhere...) See both blogs.
11 comments:
1. Mark Whitaker
2. The Plastic Bag Politics in Australia
3. Here's another update from January 2008 about plastic bag politics--to ban or not to ban? Australia is currently leaning toward banning them. I'm skeptical that bags are such a large percentage of the issue, though any issue that demotes plastic frameworks is good given the lipophilic and long term pollution and (in many cases) endocrine system disruptions in living things with the chemicals in it.
"A system of voluntary compliance would work better, according to Mr Evans," who is connected to the retailer's political organization.
Think about Schnaiberg's dynamics here and what position Evans is in to encourage consumptive expansion/withdrawals from the environment more and more pollution, etc. Re-read last week's blog entry from Lee Hea Joung as well. It is about plastic bags.
A related question is can we use other materials that more sustainable? It is really required to use plastic (or to destroy the environment) to expand the economy, as Schnaiberg argues?
What if we utilized organic hemp fiber production for bags and other throwaway items? Hemp Produces FOUR Times A Much Paper As Trees: "Dupont established itself as the world leader in synthetic fibres, with such new inventions as Nylon and Raylon, with the aid of the global outlawing of one of the most useful natural fibres, hemp. This was achieved in the US by the1937 Marijuana Transfer (Tax) Act, which was passed in the same year DuPont patented both nylon and the polluting wood-pulp sulfide (sulfur dioxide) process used to make paper. The Act was the result of political pressure and a sustained propaganda campaign by du Pont and logging and oil companies."]
I would argue that particular material flows are more important to analyze than deductive models like Schnaiberg's. Though Schnaiberg's organizational views against Malthusian views are important to consider, because I think he is right there. I will have a small handout (four pages from his 1994 book) about Schnaiberg's views against Malthusianism to hand out in class this week.
--------------------
Plastic Bags: Charging V Banning Reply to this message
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,2 3031272-5005962,00.html
PLASTIC bags may be banned from Australia by the end of the year, under plans being considered by Environment Minister Peter Garrett.
The federal government is looking to either impose a levy on each bag, or ban the bags outright, according to Fairfax.
A spokesman for Mr Garrett said he would move to phase out the bags by the end of the year, after consulting with state governments in March.
Australia uses about four billion plastic bags a year, with most ending up in landfill.
The proposal has been lauded by environmentalists, but major supermarkets are against a ban.
"It's just a simplification to contemplate banning plastic bags just because people see them floating in the water," Australian Retailers Association executive director Richard Evans said.
A system of voluntary compliance would work better, according to Mr Evans.
---
http://au.messages.yahoo.com/news/top-stories/947370/
Search this string:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=A+2002+Newfoundland+study+plastic+bags&btnG=Google+Search
for more on the battle over social construction of the issue; banning plastic bags or just ignoring the issue. There seems to be already an amazing 100,000+ examples of this story around. I don't know who penned the original story.
Jee-Hyun Song
Eco-cars go for record
This is an article about a car marathon of a hydrogen-fuelled BOC GH2OST (an eco-car like EV1) competing with petrol-driven vehicles to prove that energy efficiency of fuel cells is superior to petrol.
An interesting point is that the car test was held by Shell, one of the world's major gasoline corporation. Also, it was industrial gases supplier BOC that has developed the car's hydrogen fuel supply system.
I thought this was opposite to the EV1 case, because oil companies were one of the suspects who 'killed' the electric cars in California whereas in this case, it is them who actually support the non-petrol-using cars.
-----------------------------------
The makers of a Scottish-built eco-friendly car are hoping to smash the record for efficient fuel consumption.
The hydrogen-fuelled BOC GH2OST, which was manufactured in Aberdeen, is almost silent and the only waste product is water.
The car showcases the technologies that could herald the end of the road for petrol-driven vehicles.
It will be driven by Claudia Woon, 24, alongside petrol engines competing to beat the current 10,705-mile per gallon record for efficient fuel consumption.
The road test will take place on Saturday at the Shell Eco-Marathon Challenge being held at the Grampian Transport Museum in Aberdeenshire.
The lightweight vehicle weighs 100kg, including driver Claudia, and has a top speed of 25km/h.
The project is being masterminded by Kenny Stewart from Aberdeen, who has extensive experience of constructing ultra lightweight eco-marathon cars, and Dave McGrath of Scottish commercial fuel cell company siGEN Limited.
Industrial gases supplier BOC has developed the car's hydrogen fuel supply system.
The company's John Carolin said: "Imagine a world with no road noise, pollution or petrol queues.
"It sounds unbelievable, but this is not science fiction thanks partly to the hard work of Scottish-based companies.
"By 2020 many of the world's drivers could be taking to the road in cars fuelled by hydrogen.
"The BOC GH2OST can go around the world on the equivalent of two-and-a half gallons. It is almost silent and is emission free. In effect it is a prototype for all cars of the future."
Mr Carolin added: "We are confident we will prove the energy efficiency of fuel cells is superior to petrol - and that hydrogen is extremely practical and safe as a fuel."
The car will be go on show at this autumn's Grove Fuel Cell Symposium in London, before going on permanent display at the Grampian Transport Museum.
---------
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3120573.stm
1.hea joung
2. Title: The Trouble With Biofuels
3. People want newfuel. New fuel must clean and don't pollute the air. Several years ago I saw the biofuel in TV. In Europe many country used biofuel, and that fuel was introduced very clean. But this article tell us biofuel is not clean fuel perfectly. Because biofuels need ground. According to a pair of studies published in the journal Science recently, biofuels may not fulfill that promise — and in fact, may be worse for the climate than the fossil fuels they're meant to supplement. According to researchers at Princeton University and the Nature Conservancy, almost all the biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels. First I think this article was writtened by oil company, But cause proper that opinion. So we must consider to alternative fuel.
----------------
Maybe it was simply too good to be true. For proponents, biofuels — petroleum substitutes made from plant matter like corn or sugar cane — seemed to promise everything. Using biofuels rather than oil would reduce the greenhouse gases that accelerate global warming, because plants absorb carbon dioxide when they grow, balancing out the carbon released when burned in cars or trucks. Using homegrown biofuels would help the U.S. reduce its utter dependence on foreign oil, and provide needed income for rural farmers around the world. And unlike cars powered purely by electric batteries or hydrogen fuel cells — two alternate technologies that have yet to pan out — biofuels could be used right now.
But according to a pair of studies published in the journal Science recently, biofuels may not fulfill that promise — and in fact, may be worse for the climate than the fossil fuels they're meant to supplement. According to researchers at Princeton University and the Nature Conservancy, almost all the biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels, if the full environmental cost of producing them is factored in. As virgin land is converted for growing biofuels, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere; at the same time, biofuel crops themselves are much less effective at absorbing carbon than the natural forests or grasslands they may be replacing. "When land is converted from natural ecosystems it releases carbon," says Joseph Fargione, a lead author of one of the papers and a scientist at the Nature Conservancy. "Any climate change policy that doesn't take this fact into account doesn't work."
Many environmentalists have been making the case against biofuels for some time, arguing that biofuel production takes valuable agricultural land away from food, driving up the price of staple crops like corn. But the Science papers make a more sweeping argument. In their paper, Fargione's team calculated the "carbon debt" created by raising biofuel crops — the amount of carbon released in the process of converting natural landscapes into cropland. They found that corn ethanol produced in the U.S. had a carbon debt of 93 years, meaning it would take nearly a century for ethanol, which does produce fewer greenhouse gases when burned than fossil fuels, to make up for the carbon released in that initial landscape conversion. Palm tree biodiesel in Indonesia and Malaysia — one of the most controversial biofuels currently in use, because of its connection to tropical deforestation in those countries — has a carbon debt of 86 years. Soybean biodiesel in the Amazonian rainforest has a debt of 320 years. "People don't realize there is three times as much carbon in plants and soil than there is in the air," says Fargione. "Cut down forests, burn them, churn the soil, and you release all the carbon that's been stored."
Worse, as demand for biofuels go up — the European Union alone targets 5.75% of all its transport fuel to come from biofuel by the end of the year — the price of crops rises. That in turn encourages farmers to clear virgin land and plant more crops, releasing even more carbon in a vicious cycle. For instance, as the U.S. uses more biodiesel, much of which is made from soybeans or palm oil, farmers in Brazil or Indonesia will clear more land to raise soybeans to replace those used for fuel. "When we ask the world's farmers to feed 6 billion people and ask them to produce fuel, that requires them to use additional land," says Fargione. "That land has to come from somewhere."
Industry groups like the Renewable Fuels Association criticized the studies for being too simplistic, and failing to put biofuels in context. And it's true that the switch to biofuels can have benefits that go beyond climate change. Biofuels tend to produce less local pollution than fossil fuels, one reason why Brazil — which gets 30% of its automobile fuel from sugar-cane ethanol — has managed to reduce once stifling air pollution. In the U.S., switching to domestically produced biofuels helps cut dependence on foreign oil, and boosts income for farmers. But in all of these cases, the benefits now seem to pale next to the climate change deficits. Fargione points out that if the U.S. managed to use 15 billion gallons of ethanol by 2015 — as is mandated in last year's energy bill — it would still only offset 7% of projected energy demand. That won't put Venezuela or Iran out of business.
This is all depressing news, especially if you're a corn farmer. Biofuels are one of the few alternative fuels that are actually available right now, but the evidence suggests we be better off not relying on them. But even Fargione doesn't argue that we should ditch biofuels altogether. Biofuels using waste matter — like wood chips, or the leftover sections of corn stalks — or from perennial plants like switchgrass, effectively amount to free fuel, because they don't require clearing additional land. "There's no carbon debt," notes Fargione. Unfortunately, the technology for yielding fuel from those sources — like cellulosic biofuels — is still in its infancy, though it is improving fast. In the end, the right kind of biofuel won't be a silver bullet, but just one more tool in the growing arsenal against climate change.
-----
Author:
Bryan Walsh
Publication:
TIME Magazine
Publisher:
Time Inc.
Date:
Feb 14, 2008
Copyright © 2008, Time Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted by permission.
1.Min Sook Kim (Choi)
2.General Motors to launch rechargeable car by 2010
3.This article caught my eyes instantly because its direct relation to the film we’d been watching in the class last week.
GM finally announced the plan to put out the electric car, named Volt in the market! EV1 and the battery that was used in EV1 were mentioned in the article, however still there was no explanation as to why the first successful electric car had to be scrapped.
At least they admitted the consumers see GM as the home of the Hummer, a gas-drinking machine, and they want to win back the consumers.
---------------
General Motors to launch rechargeable car by 2010
Reuters Fri, Apr 4 10:19 AM
General Motors Corp on Thursday showed off its progress in developing the highly anticipated Chevrolet Volt and detailed its road map for bringing the rechargeable car to the market by 2010, an ambitious timeline challenged by some rivals.
"We are moving with incredible speed," said Frank Weber, GM's vehicle line executive in charge of the Volt. "This project is not concept work. This program is not theory. It is reality."
Weber said GM's senior executives remain committed to launching the Volt by November 2010, calling the plug-in hybrid the "No. 1 priority project that we have now within GM."
GM, which is counting on the high-mileage Volt to leapfrog Toyota Motor Corp's market-leading hybrid Prius, on Thursday opened its battery research labs and design studio to dozens of journalists and analysts.
The automaker's unusual open-door policy is part of an effort to show a commitment to the electric car technology many environmental advocates see as the best hope to cut oil use and greenhouse gas emissions. GM also wants to win back consumers it lost because of its reputation as the home of the Hummer.
The Volt is being designed to run 40 miles powered by a 400-pound, T-shaped lithium-ion battery pack that will be cooled by a liquid system to keep it from overheating.
That battery pack is shorter and only weighs a third as much as the nickel metal-hydride battery featured in GM's now-scrapped EV1 electric car, subject of the 2006 documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?"
The Volt marks the first attempt to adapt lithium-ion batteries, widely used in electronics, for a car, although Toyota is racing ahead with its own work on the same technology.
In its labs, GM is testing dueling battery packs, one supplied by a subsidiary of Korea's LG Chem Ltd and the other built by a division of German auto parts supplier Continental AG using technology developed by Massachusetts-based A123 Systems.
The goal, GM said, is to ensure that it has a battery that can run at least 150,000 miles, last 10 years and allow drivers to accelerate to 60-miles-per-hour in less than 9 seconds.
Roland Matthe, a manager in GM's battery group, said the competing packs were neck-and-neck in tests meant to simulate driving in conditions ranging from Alaska cold to Arizona heat. "If you look at the data they look very similar," Matthe said.
GM has been quietly testing Volt-like technology in a maroon 2005 Chevrolet Malibu sedan at its Milford, Michigan proving track since last year and will began bolting the new batteries into vehicles for track testing this month.
"We've already learned a lot about how this battery behaves," said Michael Bly, GM's director of hybrid vehicle integration.
REMEMBER THE GAS TANK?
Among the challenges GM is still grappling with is how to treat an unusual problem: the risk that gas in the Volt's specially pressurized, low-emission tank goes unused.
A gas engine will kick in to recharge the Volt battery as necessary, but with short trips and frequent recharging at a standard outlet some drivers may seldom need fuel.
GM, which has tweaked its global small-car platform for the Volt, could tune its proprietary drive-train software to kick in and burn off gas if needed to prevent engine damage.
Another problem: the first design GM showed off for the Volt at the 2007 Detroit auto show was too boxy and aggressively styled up front to cut through the wind and boost the vehicle's battery-only range.
"We jokingly said it was the electric Camaro," said Volt design director Bob Boniface. "It was the fist in the wind."
After extensive wind-tunnel testing, GM designers rounded the front corners on the Volt and gave it a higher and bigger spoiler. Relatively small aerodynamic improvements have boosted the electric range by more than half a mile, Boniface said.
Meanwhile, GM engineers are counting on braking to capture energy that will deliver some 20 percent of the power needed for the Volt's 40-mile battery range. Without any braking -- in perfectly traffic-free highway driving -- the range would be closer to 32 miles, GM engineers said.
----
http://in.news.yahoo.com/financialexpress/20080404/r_t_fe_tc/ttc-general-motors-to-launch-rechargeabl-aa05ada_1.html
1. Gowoon JUNG
2. Questions from the case "Who killed the electronic car?"
3. We learned the theory of Treadmill, and looked at the case "EV1 made by GM". From that case, we could learn the organizational problems involved to environment. Even though we can not know exactly which entities made EV1 dead, we can mostly agree that political pressure existed between each entities: state, company, and citizen.
Since my listening comprehension is poor, I think I understood something very vaguely and lost some points. There are my questions
Q1. Throughout the film, I heared repeatdely that treadmill is connected to specific material in the case of Eclectronic car. Here when we mention "material", does it mean just oil and electricity? This politic happens because of the invisible struggle between oil party and electricity party (I mean companies and the people who get profits from there)
or.. does the "material" mean something elase? Later on, I thought that is is related to Battery stuff. (But, I am not sure~ just gessing!)
Q2. According to the people who consumed the electronic car, they said that GM did not listen to citizen, care about their consumers, and did not make production facilitate. What does this mean? I did not understand from which context this conroversial came out.
In addition, they(GM) did not sell cars out of small area, California. I did not understand why they did. (In this part, did I lose some arguements or nobody knows the reason? )Probably, this would be the same question of all consumers who support Electronic car. Secret by GM. No answer...
Q3. I have a question about Citizen party in Schnaiberg theory. I did not understand well the deal between monopoly company and citizen - labor worker in original theory. Vaguely I remember that company provides many working postions to citizens, then citizen cooperate to support company to expand their production. Is that right? I want to more specific arguement.^^
Q3-1. In the Eclectronic car case, 80 people gathered to realize themselves about the severeness of environmental degradation and the necessity of electronic car. So, it looks a bit different from the Schnaiberg theory. But why didn't they meet earlier to make Electronic car live? I mean... people who thought electronic car is helpful and have a mind to support, didn't they take actions for environmental justice?
Q4. From several suspects, I did not catch the arguement of Battery. We saw the grandfather who made Electronic car's battery. I did not catch this part well. (Probably,the context is..)Oil company purchased the battery technology to prevent Electronic car. But I think I heard that GM also purchased something and GM did not advertise something.. I don't know what these somethings mean.
Sorry for many questions. Looking at the film " Electronic car" was very interesting even though there was some difficulties to understand. I thought that we should not be confined to the theoretical framework because the real world's case is more variable and unpredictable.
1. Gowoon JUNG
2. Driving GM's New Hydrogen Car
By John Voelcker
3. Wow! Here we have similar news from GM, the Hydrogen Car~! After glancing at this article, I was somehow glad and worried to hear the news.
The article said that Hydrogen car only emit and make water, and explains many mechanisms of the vehicle. However, what I thought is that the GM should make their great effort to advetise the car and fascinate the consumers's mind in diverse way. I think people will support the car with the reason of environmental issue. Even though there can be some kind of political attack from other entities, they can survive and achieve the production of sustainable vehicles with the huge support of citizens, consumers!
People can cooperate and they can make world go forward to develop in sustainable way!^^
------------------------------
Hybrids are now an accepted part of our vehicle landscape, with electric cars powered by lithium-ion batteries on the horizon. But General Motors and other manufacturers are also looking much further ahead, toward a future where our personal transport—what we might call “a car”—is powered exclusively by hydrogen fuel cells.
GM has spent a decade working on fuel-cell cars, with several concept vehicles along the way: the HydroGen1 of 2000, and the AUTOnomy and HyWire concepts revealed in 2002. The most recent push came five years ago from CEO Rick Wagoner’s challenge to Larry Burns, GM’s global head of research and development: Completely reinvent the automobile for the 21st century, unburdened by any legacy technologies.
In Burn’s words, GM wants to “take the automobile out of the environmental debate.” With emissions of nothing more than water vapor, hydrogen fuel cells eliminate carbon fuels altogether. That is, they eliminate them from the vehicle. Instead, the debate over the types of energy used to generate hydrogen shifts from GM and other carmakers to the natural resources and power industries.
GM’s latest fuel-cell car, the Sequel concept, was unveiled at Detroit’s January 2005 North American International Auto Show. Less than two years later, it’s a drivable prototype (two of them, actually), now called the Chevrolet Sequel. Last week, GM let selected journalists—among them this Spectrum reporter—drive it within the guarded confines of the U.S. Marine Corps' Camp Pendleton in California.
Tanks: A Lot
Outside, the Sequel is a sleek, stylish SUV. You wouldn’t give it a second glance at the mall parking lot. But underneath, it has little in common with today’s cars beyond wheels and tires. Its “skateboard” aluminum chassis is built around three long, heavily reinforced canisters that hold 8 kg of hydrogen. That mass of hydrogen contains the same energy as 8 gallons of gasoline, though GM’s latest fuel cell uses energy twice as efficiently as a gas engine.
The 73-kW fuel cell in the Sequel is a sealed box in which hydrogen passes through a membrane to react with oxygen, producing water and giving off energy. It’s that energy that powers the three electric motors that move the vehicle: One 65-kW motor in the front, plus individual 3-phase permanent-magnet 25-kW wheel motors at the rear. Total traction power is thus 115 kW. Those rear motors also act as generators, so when a driver hits the brakes, energy that would have been lost is used to recharge a 65-kW lithium-ion battery pack stored within the “skateboard” between the rear wheels.
The steering wheel, accelerator, and brake pedal aren’t mechanically connected to the wheels or powertrain. Instead, a set of computer processors evaluates what you asked for—and then tells the car how to do it most efficiently. This “by wire” control technology not only reduces weight by eliminating mechanical components, it also maximizes safety by letting the car weigh what it’s being asked to do against external factors (such as traffic, weather, vehicle proximity, etc.).
Behind the Wheel
Having drive-by-wire controls means driving the Sequel runs the risk of feeling like a video game—compelling but not quite “real.” But in fact, GM’s engineers (spread across Warren, Mich.; Honeyoye Falls, N.Y.; Torrance, Calif.; and Mainz Kastel, Germany) did so much simulation work to make it feel real that … it actually does.
Behind the wheel, it drives and steers like a heavy SUV: Press the accelerator, and it accelerates. Turn the wheel, and it changes direction. The only difference is that the slight whine of the electric motors increases continuously—there’s no change in engine note as the transmission shifts, because there’s no transmission. And the brake-pedal feel is so natural that I completely forgot I wasn’t getting feedback through a hydraulic system but an electric simulation using pistons and quite a lot of software.
The Sequel weighs 2170 kg (4774 lb), at the high end of the range for a 4-to-5-seat SUV. It will do the 0-to-60-mph sprint in less than 10 seconds, with a top speed of 145 km/h (90 mph). Most important is its range of 300 miles (480 km)—like a normal car—meaning that the Sequel travels roughly twice as far on the same energy content as a conventionally powered SUV.
We won’t see Sequels at our dealerships any time soon, though. Each of these concept cars probably costs one million dollars or more, although “productionizing”—figuring out how to lower weight, reduce complexity, cut costs, and improve reliability—is a standard part of technology innovation. As the shape of the world’s hydrogen infrastructure becomes clearer over the next decade, the component costs will fall and carmakers will know more about how fuel cells perform in the real world.
---------------------
http://spectrum.ieee.org/sep06/4576
Hyeseon Jeong
Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore praises Quebec's environmental record
I totally agree that CO2 tax can make CO2 visible to the economy. And I was impressed by last part of this article. Yes, definitely, it should be. I believe government’s tax policies also make can visible many things, such as who is real good contributor in the process of dealing with Climate Change, how much harmful a lot of aviation traffic to the clean air, and how we can contribute, as individual, tackling the environmental degradation. However, the problem is, as everyone knows, this powerful tools are abuse or use improperly by the dark, invisible hand of powerful group in the world of politics and business for hiding the truth, their profit and proper action to deal with real problem.
Well, by the way, last Friday, I was in a conference for discussing environmental issues with various people have various backgrounds. At Plaza hotel, most expensive site in Korea, all of members are sitting under the luxurious chandeliers (all of these are sparkling!), and talking not so quite related environmental issues.... I was little confused… disappointed and uncomfortable. I thought that kind of situation is not compatible to their saying, will or purpose of meeting.
After all, I just suggested with considering the dignity of that function, “If nobody feeling inconvenience, please… do diminish illumination, just a bit”.
How awful it is. As SOUND one of youth in Korea especially caring our mother earth, this experience gave to me a lot of responsibility… I hope all of you are felt same.
-----------------------------------
Sunday, April 6, 2008
MONTREAL: Asked what he thought of Canada' environmental record, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore joked Saturday he was trying to stay out of politics.
"I am going to try to stay out of Canadian politics — I'm even trying to stay out of U.S. politics these days," Gore said to chuckles.
The environmental crusader was in the French-speaking city Montreal to train 220 Canadians on how to host slideshow seminars adapted from his acclaimed documentary film, "An Inconvenient Truth."
Although Gore was mum about how the country's environmental record measured up on a whole, he was praised Quebec's environmental policies.
"Quebec has been the first province to adopt a CO2 tax, which is generally considered to be the single most sensible and effective policy response," said Gore, who won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the global-warming issue.
"You know, CO2 is invisible and tasteless and odorless and it comes with no price tag, so it's invisible to the economy.
Gore said he would like to see a CO2 tax in the United States so it becomes "visible to the economy."
A CO2 tax, also known as a carbon tax, is imposed on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. They are typically tied to use of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas and are designed to create and incentive to use alternative sources of energy like wind or hydrogen.
"Quebec has begun to do that," Gore said. "Now, British Columbia has also done it. Quebec has taken other steps that are to be commended also."
Quebec's carbon tax, which took effect last year, directs revenues to initiatives supporting green technology and was created to help the province reach Kyoto Protocol targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to below 1990 levels by 2012.
Last month, Canada's Conservative government released details of their greenhouse gas reduction plan, which they say will result in a 20 percent drop in emissions from 2006 levels by 2020. But the country has not met the greenhouse gas reduction goal set by the Kyoto Protocol, an international framework for reducing greenhouse gases that Canada ratified in 2002.
But Gore did not criticize Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government.
"As for Canada as a whole, again, I am going to try to stay out of Canadian politics," he said.
"This is not, or should not be, a political issue. This is a moral issue. It's an ethical issue. It's a spiritual issue in that we have to decide who we are as a people," he said.
------------
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/06/america/NA-GEN-Canada-Al-Gore.php
1. Nuri Na
2. Oil reserve site raises ire, Bush policy tested
3. Bush administration is trying to have "environmentally friendly" energy development. However many people are questioning it. Now the policy is under attack in a towm in Mississippi and residents are worrying about the policy. Here again, government policy is against to local residents and environmental groups.
-----------------------------------
The Bush administration says it favors "environmentally friendly" energy development, but that policy is under attack in a Mississippi town where residents worry a planned emergency oil reserve may drain a river, destroy wetlands and harm Gulf of Mexico fishing areas.
There is fear the Energy Department's plan to carve out underground salt caverns in Richton, Mississippi, to hold some 160 million barrels of crude oil could be the worst environmental disaster to hit the state since Hurricane Katrina.
The government's decision to pick Richton as the fifth storage site in expanding the country's Strategic Petroleum Reserve was touted as a $4 billion economic boost for a state still suffering from being sideswiped by Katrina.
The Energy Department said the oil site will be constructed in an "environmentally friendly" manner, but many residents and environmental groups feel that is just government-speak.
"That's an absolute joke, there is nothing environmentally friendly about this project," said Steve Shepard, Gulf Coast director for the Sierra Club's Mississippi chapter. "They want to ram it down our throats."
The strategic reserve, created by Congress after the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo, is the largest stockpile of government-owned crude in the world. It now holds a record 701 million barrels of oil at four locations in Texas and Louisiana.
The Department of Energy is boosting the reserve to 1 billion barrels, as Congress mandated, by adding Richton and expanding two existing sites. Richton was chosen because it is less vulnerable to hurricanes but close to a major pipeline system and the Gulf of Mexico for easy oil deliveries.
But many locals are horrified the government may drain 50 million gallons of water a day from the Pascagoula River for five years to dissolve the salt in the caverns. The resulting brine is to be carried away in a pipeline -- which the Energy Department admits will probably leak many times -- and dumped into the Gulf of Mexico not far from the state's coastline.
Many area residents feel they were left in the dark about the project after the Energy Department held public hearings on the storage site about 110 miles away in the state capital of Jackson shortly after Katrina hit.
"Very few people knew about the hearings," said Becky Stowe, director of stewardship for the Mississippi chapter of the Nature Conservancy. "People down here didn't have phones" after the hurricane, she said.
WERE STUDIES DONE?
Stowe said the Nature Conservancy, which protects land near the salt caverns, hasn't taken a position on the site but it is worried the government has not carried out the proper studies.
DOE spokeswoman Megan Barnett said the department conducted an extensive review of the Richton site and "will ensure environmental and ecological protections" are in place.
Still, facing a citizen rebellion and several concerned Mississippi lawmakers, the Energy Department last month said it would conduct another review of the storage site and hold a new round of public meetings which will start next week. This time the meetings will be closer to Richton.
Much of the environmental concerns about the project center on taking the 50 million gallons a day from the Pascagoula River. The river is home to endangered species, flows at low levels at certain times and is already used by industries.
"We may not have enough water in the river," said Eric Richards with the grass-roots Gulf Conservation Coalition.
He wants the government to build a longer pipeline to pull water from the Mississippi River, which has a bigger flow. DOE says the Pascagoula river's water level could be lowered only 1 inch under its plan.
There is also worry the brine, 10 times saltier than Gulf water, would leak from the pipeline as it crosses over fragile wetlands.
"It would kill them," said Stowe. "There's no doubt it's going to leak." Indeed, the government said it expects the pipeline will have around four dozen leaks over five years.
With some remote wetlands, leaks won't likely be found for days and then the damage will be done. "Somebody is going to be out fishing and they'll start seeing dead fish," said Shepard.
DOE plans to bring to the public meetings a jar of the caverns' brine, which it says looks and flows like water, to show it won't be a thick slurry and ease citizen concerns.
Richards suggests the government skip the removal pipeline and pump the brine deep underground in other salt caverns in the area. That would also avoid dumping it in the Gulf near valuable shrimping areas.
The Energy Department said it expects to issue the draft of its second environmental impact statement on the project in late autumn.
-----
http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/34167
Sorry for the late posting.
1. Keonhwa Sung
2. Coca-Cola Charged with Groundwater Depletion and Pollution in India
3. Coca-Cola makes people drink unhealthy soda and also create thirst because of lack of water. From few decades to now, people have bought water. Before that situation, we did not think about the fact we buy water to drink safe water. In addition, people in India might find water to live their lives. It is not only drinking water but also living water like washing their bodies. Even though people think just only their interest and profit, we must have our responsibility to live with environment.
--------------------------------------
Coca-Cola bottling plants may be taking groundwater from local villages
Dear EarthTalk: I heard that Coca-Cola is depleting groundwater around bottling plants in India so surrounding villages have no safe water supply? Is this true?
--Dan Ehl, Centerville, IA
An ongoing drought has threatened groundwater supplies across India, and many villagers in rural areas are blaming Coca-Cola for aggravating the problem.
Coca-Cola operates 52 water-intensive bottling plants in India. In the southern Indian village of Plachimada in Kerala state, for example, persistent droughts have dried up groundwater and local wells, forcing many residents to rely on water supplies trucked in daily by the government.
Groundwater Problem Began Several Years Ago
Some there link the lack of groundwater to the arrival of a Coca-Cola bottling plant in the area three years ago. Following several large protests, the local government revoked Coca-Cola’s license to operate last year, and ordered the company to shut down its $25 million plant.
Similar groundwater problems have plagued the company in the rural Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, where farming is the primary industry. Several thousand residents took part in a 10-day march in 2004 between two Coca-Cola bottling plants thought to be depleting groundwater.
“Drinking Coke is like drinking farmer’s blood in India,” said protest organizer Nandlal Master. “Coca-Cola is creating thirst in India, and is directly responsible for the loss of livelihood and even hunger for thousands of people across India,” added Master, who represents the India Resource Center in the campaign against Coca-Cola.
Indeed, one report, in the daily newspaper Mathrubhumi, described local women having to travel five kilometers (three miles) to obtain drinkable water, during which time soft drinks would come out of the Coca-Cola plant by the truckload.
Coca-Cola Offers Sludge "Fertilizer" and Beverages with Pesticides
Groundwater isn’t the only issue. The Central Pollution Control Board of India found in 2003 that sludge from Coca-Cola’s Uttar Pradesh factory was contaminated with high levels of cadmium, lead and chromium.
To make matters worse, Coca-Cola was offloading cadmium-laden waste sludge as “free fertilizer” to tribal farmers who live near the plant, prompting questions as to why they would do that but not provide clean water to local residents whose underground supplies were being “stolen.”
Another Indian nonprofit group, the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), says it tested 57 carbonated beverages made by Coca-Cola and Pepsi at 25 bottling plants and found a “cocktail of between three to five different pesticides in all samples.”
CSE Director Sunita Narain, winner of the 2005 Stockholm Water Prize, described the group’s findings as “a grave public health scandal.”
Coca-Cola Responds to Charges of Pollution and Groundwater Depletion
For its part, Coca-Cola says that “a small number of politically motivated groups” are going after the company “for the furtherance of their own anti-multinational agenda.” It denies that its actions in India have contributed to depleting local aquifers, and calls allegations “without any scientific basis.”
---------------------------------------
http://environment.about.com/od/waterpollution/a/groundwater_ind.htm?p=1
Post a Comment