Make 'em Go Ah, Ah, Ah-way

As spring gives way to the season of sand, sunburns, and prescription deodorant, one of the most highly coveted holidays quickly approaches. It is the one holiday that remains absent of weddings, bloat, and obligatory gift giving. It's the only time that everyone can do whatever the want -- hopefully some activity involving a beach, boat, or barbeque. Not only is the Fourth of July fun and relaxing, but more importantly, it celebrates American independence. Now that's something to get psyched about.

So, in all my excitement about the holiday, why I'm leaving out one the most iconic images?

Fireworks!
http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/01/12507973-fireworks-festival-lights-up-skies-over-zagreb?lite

Look a little closer....

Have you ever noticed the haze that fireworks leave behind?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6488006/Firework-design-has-come-a-long-way-from-exploding-bamboo.html

While beautiful, fireworks generate a significant amount of environmental pollution.

1. Non-biodegradable wastes: 20 tons of plastic firework waste was collected over 28 miles of a Washington state beach in 2010. Six months later, they were still collecting whatever trash wasn't consumed by wildlife. On a personal level, think about all of the trash your neighborhood sparklers, drop pops, snakes, and party poppers make.

2. Chemicals and air particulates: Sulfur, perchlorate, lead, cadmium, rubidium, strontium, lithium, antimony... not good. In addition to chemicals and heavy metals, significant quantities of particulates are released and can drastically change a city's air quality. None of these things are good for you, your children, or your pets. 

http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2011/07/fireworks-air-quality-alert.html

Disneyland's daily fireworks generated smoke and odor complaints from nearby residents. After a thorough study in 2004, Disney moved away from gun powder and now uses compressed air to jettison their fireworks high into the air. I love the star spangled banner as much as the next person, but "bombs bursting in air" isn't something to be repeated every year (or every week or day). We must move toward modern cleaner methods like this.

Laser light show in Brisbane: another more friendly alternative
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32053650@N03/7986569321/

A Promising Transition or The Death of Renewables

Last month's Atlantic featured a thoughtful analysis of natural gas and it's affect on the economy. The article discusses the unfortunate past, transitional present, and dubious future of energy:

Past:
Fuel: Coal --> Oil
Politics: In 1913, Winston Churchill pushed to convert Great Britain from coal to oil, a campaign which embedded the West within the heart of the Middle East. Dependence on foreign oil was born. In an effort to stabilize oil supply, Western leaders meddled in regional affairs, supporting welcoming leaders and ousting the rest. While our oil supply was being controlled, the economic and civic strength of these countries was compromised, causing destabilization that produced millions of disaffected middle easterners, some of whom have since lashed back at America.

Present:
Fuel: Oil --> Natural Gas
Politics: Natural gas is clearly a political win. Because America has a lot of it, the concern over foreign oil dependence may soon end. Not only that, but natural gas could play a role in economic recovery. The peak oil debate is no longer relevant. Improving technologies will likely lead to a nearly endless supply of fossil fuels, regardless of source or form. Reversely, cheap, bountiful natural gas makes renewable energy a lot less competitive.

Future:
Fuel: Natural Gas, Renewables, or Both
Politics: The question is, will natural gas become our main energy source or will it act as the gateway to a more sustainable future? Carbon emissions need to be all but eliminated in order to combat climate change, and settling on natural gas could be our undoing.


Some Background: Natural Gas and Fracking

Livestock are responsible for approximately 30% of US methane emissions.

Currently, natural gas is obtained through a process called fracking (hydraulic fracturing), which uses a horizontal drill and a high pressure slurry (water, chemicals, sand, etc) to extract methane from shale rock. I don't protest natural gas, nor do I advocate it. My only hope is that we don't suffer from the Trojan horse effect.

Pros:
1. It has the potential of eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. As stability in the Middle East becomes increasingly tenuous, this is essential.
2. Natural gas burns cleaner than oil and coal. CO2 emissions in the US have decreased 12% over the last 7 years, due in part to the natural gas boom.
3. Natural gas has an EROEI (energy return on energy invested) of 87, as compared to 4-7 for tar sands, and 12-18 for OPEC oil. Though these exact numbers may be debated, natural gas is typically the leader.
4. Natural gas is bountiful and cheap, which may aid US economic recovery.

Cons:
1. Despite some claims that methane leaks from fracking are minimal, actual field tests have not been completed. Some large, undiscovered leaks could lead to significant releases of methane, a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2.
2. The high pressure extraction liquids used in fracking could contaminate surrounding areas. While rules on concrete well casings have been established, the BLM (National Bureau of Land Management) is not requiring companies to post a complete list of chemicals if they are considered trade secrets. Furthermore, all chemical reporting does not  need to be completed until AFTER wells have been tapped.
3. There is not yet enough historical data to prove that methane won't leak through the fissures up into the soil, for which there are no protections in place.
  

Coming to America: Is Outsourcing of the Past?

Over Thanksgiving, I read an article called "The Insourcing Boom" in The Atlantic. It was an interesting read, and I highly recommend it.

from thetruthaboutcars.com

 Outsourcing began as a way to reduce labor costs. However, that math doesn't always add up; outsourcing is not a sure-fire win. The point of the article is to highlight how several distinct differences between 1960 and today should change our perspective on manufacturing.

1)  By separating production from design with thousands of miles and a language barrier, efficiency is compromised. GE was able to reduce 35% of the labor required for their dishwasher assembly line through lean manufacturing principles.

"If the people who design dishwashers sit at their desks in one building, and the people who sell them to retailers and consumers sit at their desks in another building, and the people who make the dishwashers are in a different country and speak a different language—you never realize that the four screws should disappear, let alone come up with a way they can."- Fishman, discussing how internal collaboration can lead to the detection of inefficiencies

2) There is a growing trend for specialized products that continue evolving as new technology is developed. Not only do American companies want to protect their IP by keeping it within our borders but they also want the ability to deliver cutting-edge products quickly.

"In specific terms, the service that... a growing number of design firms can offer is a “quick iteration” way of deciding which ideas will be most practical for manufacturing. “Over the past couple of years, people have gotten used to the idea of rapid iteration in social-media firms,” Linus Chung told me. “You iterate and adapt quickly based on consumer demand. You learn to ‘fail fast.’ We’re bringing that to the hardware space.”" - Fallows, describing how local manufacturing gives companies the ability to tweak and roll out their products quickly and effectively ("Mr. China Comes to America")

3) Fuel costs are not what they used to be. Rising oil prices make long distance shipments increasingly expensive. Furthermore, energy costs in the US are decreasing due to the availability of cheap natural gas.

4) The weight of labor costs on total production cost is decreasing and the divide between Chinese and American labor wage is decreasing.

"Insourcing" has environmental implications as well. By bringing manufacturing closer to engineering expertise and it's target consumer market, transportation emissions are cut, production efficiency increases, and waste is reduced.

At my company, we put immense focus on integrating all parts of the design/manufacturing/sales process. By having open channels of communication, we are able to design systems upfront that promote efficiency and success in all parts of the supply chain, from design through operation and sales.

Open the Floodgates (for discussion, not oil)

The Exxon pipeline fiasco in Arkansas will surely lead to debate over the prudence of Keystone XL, especially if it traverses environmentally sensitive areas/communities.

Exxon Mobil was fined three years prior to this accident for failing to test the integrity of their pipeline frequently enough.

One question is: what are the federal safety requirements (i.e. excess flow devices, pressure monitoring, etc.) for pipelines that are hundreds of miles long? Did Exxon implement insufficient mitigation methods to prevent such a large spill or was this a lack of foresight by the government/NFPA to establish safety codes with adequate levels of protection? If Keystone XL moves forward, what will prevent this from happening again? TransCanada believes they have technology that could stop a leak in 15 minutes. Even if they do, that's a long time for a large, high pressure pipeline to be pouring out oil.

I wish we could spur debate on issues without bad things happening. #SandyHook #ExxonArkansas

A Wet Hot Icelandic Winter

I traveled to Iceland in late February this year, and I learned three important things:

1) Icelandic words are incredibly difficult to pronounce. --It took me an entire week to master "Eyjafjallajokull" -- (Ay-ya-fyeht-la-yo-kutl)

2) I don't mind the rain (no matter how INCONVENIENT), because it makes scenery vibrant.

3) If I lived in Iceland, I would have a very small carbon footprint.

Eyjafjallajokull, Iceland's famous volcano.
It was too foggy for a good shot.

The famous hot dog stand in downtown Reykjavik where former President Clinton insulted an entire country by eating a hot dog with "only ketchup"

On the surface, Iceland, covered in ice and rock, might seem like a cold and barren island with no hope for renewable energy. But, if you look deeper, you'll see that these are exactly the things that allow Iceland to be so self-sufficient.

Ice => Melting glaciers provide a steady stream of  freshwater and hydropower.
Lava rock => Lava rock is rich in nutrients and leads to fertile soil.
Volcanic activity => Geothermal hotspots are everywhere on the island.

Tomato hothouse outside Reykjavik

Iceland harvests 90% of its heat from geothermal energy and obtains ~75% of its electricity from hydropower. Less than .1% comes from fossil fuels.

If you're on an island where everything is imported and expensive, use geothermal energy to power and heat greenhouses! ------------------>

The only concern in Iceland's renewable energy future is climate change. Short term impacts look positive -- improved weather, growth in hydropower from glacial melt, increased travel via opened waterways, and widened geothermal sites. However, when the glaciers have melted away, freshwater and hydropower will be limited, and newly uncovered oil fields may lead to carbon dependency. Here's hoping for some genuine Icelandic creativity!

> 50 sq km of moss covered lava rock

Jokulsarlon - glacier lagoon

The Blue Lagoon - a geothermal spa