Energy Archives

Friday, April 3, 2009 --
1:36 p.m.

A story from the Tribune today talks about a wind turbine company that wants to build wind farms in Illinois--and the debate that's coming with them.

Residents in rural DeKalb County are against hulking wind turbines disturbing their peaceful backyards. As one resident, Kathy Bock, said:

And I can, of course, see their point of view on the situation. On the other hand ...

The story also says the turbines will "generate 226.5 megawatts for the electricity grid, enough to power 55,000 homes ..." And it'll bring new jobs to the area, as well $42 million in property tax revenue over 30 years.

We talk about the cost of energy going up; the problems with the use of fossil fuels both because they're damaging to the environment and are non-renewable source and will run out some day; the ugliness--and pollution--that coal mines and nuclear power plants have brought to our land. But then we're not willing to support something that can help us in more ways than one?

Yes, again, I understand why you wouldn't want giant turbines in your yard--and by yard, I mean about a quarter mile away. Though I don't think that wind turbines are as much of an eyesore as, say, another Wal-Mart or shopping mall--or even a really ugly house.

But the sacrifice of some would be a benefit to many, many others.

>> For more wind energy information, check out this other story from the Tribune about how wind turbines off U.S. coasts "could potentially supply more than enough electricity to meet the nation's current electricity demand."

The spokesman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, on CNN, says he doesn't know burning coal causes global warming because he's "not a scientist." (More here and here)

Also--this just in--the Earth may or may not be round.

Friday, February 27, 2009 -- 11:27 a.m.

The Coen brothers are the directors behind Reality's newest ad: "Clean Coal Air Freshener." The commercial calls out the coal industry's claims coal is clean.

The Reality Coalition is a joint project between Sierra Club, Alliance for Climate Protection, the League of Conservation Voters, National Wildlife Federation and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Its goal is to get out message about coal--and the fact that it's not clean. They're directly targeting the coal industry about their ways, as well.

And you know they're aiming high with the Coen brothers at the helm of their latest ad.

Friday, February 6, 2009 -- 2:54 p.m.

Check out this story from the New York Times about people that got rid of their refrigerators in an effort to be more environmentally responsible.

I don't think I'll get rid of mine anytime soon, but it's interesting. My grandparents in India actually didn't have a refrigerator for a long time ... so long, in fact, that my mom is an expert on what needs to be refrigerated and what doesn't.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008 -- 9:24 a.m.

It's freezing outside, which means the heat's on inside my apartment. This is the first time in a while that I've living in a place with central heating, so I know that I have high gas bills to look forward to this winter.

One of the best things you can do for yourself if you've got central heat/air is to get a thermostat to regulate the temperature during different parts of the day. Mine is programmed to be warmest (66 degrees) between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m., when people are home. At night, the temp drops to 62. And there are a few hours in the early morning that it's set somewhere in between--around 64.

If that sounds cold to you, that's because it kind of is.

But it's certainly more efficient--and cost-effective--than cranking it up to the 75 degrees I'd love to keep it at.

The only problem is, I freeze at night. I have a tiny space heater that I've had for years and years that seems to be on its way out. So I'm looking at my options right now as to how to replace it--another space heater or another blanket.

For those of you looking to keep a room warm for relatively short amounts of time, a space heater is a great way to go. Instead of heating your entire home with the gas heat, the heater allows you to warm up just the room--or the area in which you're sitting--for a little while. And it'll probably cost you less than cranking up the thermostat.

My dad had another great idea--I called him this morning after I woke up freezing, despite being under two blankets with my space heater on. He suggested an electric blanket, which uses much less electricity than a space heater because it doesn't have to warm an entire room or space. And I like the idea of waking up and going to bed under a toasty blanket. Dad, you're so smart--I think that's the winner for me.

In addition to the supplemental heating, I'm going to use a window insulation kit on the insides of my windows to keep the cold air out--and the warm air in. It doesn't look so pretty, but neither does a high gas bill.

And the best accessories to get you through the winter? Slippers and a really warm sweatshirt.

Monday, July 21, 2008 -- 6:50 p.m.

I've been making it a habit for the past few months to take the stairs as much as possible. My thinking was that I'd save a little energy by not using the elevator--and I'd benefit from the exercise of climbing four flights of stairs.

I got a bit of grief when I switched to the stairs, especially when I explained my eco-minded reasoning behind it. It was hard to explain that every little bit of energy, including that used by the elevator, helped reduce our electricity use. So, I gave up on the eco aspect of it and started touting the health angle.

Today, however, I am redeemed by Ideal Bite's daily tip, found here. They confirm my eco-logic--and provide some cold, hard facts on how much energy elevators actual use. You can even figure out how many extra calories you burn taking the stairs.

Finally, vindication!

Friday July 18, 2008 -- 12:08 p.m.

Al Gore's got a challenge for us: Switch entirely to carbon-free energy within 10 years.

That's quite a proposal, even for Gore. He nailed the timing, though, pushing it the way of presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain for a response.

According to the Times story above, here are their statements:

Obama, in a written statement, said: “For decades, Al Gore has challenged the skeptics in Washington on climate change and awakened the conscience of a nation to the urgency of this threat. I strongly agree with Vice President Gore that we cannot drill our way to energy independence, but must fast-track investments in renewable sources of energy like solar power, wind power and advanced biofuels, and those are the investments I will make as president.”

Tucker Bounds, a McCain spokesman, said: “John McCain has been a leader in the fight against global climate change, working with Democrats on this issue since 2003, but no one has more successfully recruited Americans into this effort than Al Gore. This is a key issue, and John McCain has put solutions over partisanship to pursue meaningful, market-driven cap and trade legislation aimed at drastically reducing harmful carbon emissions.”

Will these statements lead to actual action? Only time will tell, I suppose.

After reading the stories on Gore's speech, I tried to read the full version, hoping to pick up on something the papers didn't get. But, alas, it's long, and my attention span didn't hold out. I did, however, manage to find an annotated version of the speech on the Dot Earth blog, which made the reading much more interesting. It's not my perspective, but it's an interesting take on the details of his speech.

Tuesday, July 8, 2008 -- 7:59 p.m.

It is HOT outside, and there's no better feeling than stepping into a store or home that has the air conditioning on high. And if you're walking past many stores on Halsted Street near Armitage, like one of my friend was earlier today, you might get the same feeling just walking by.

She mentioned that most of the stores on this strip of Lincoln Park (and probably many stores everywhere) leave their doors open, yet have the air blasting inside. And if you ever run the air at home, you know that leaving a window or door open while it's on will only result in higher bills and energy consumption.

No doubt they leave the doors wide open to draw in customers with their inviting, cold air. I wonder if the people that come in because of this method actually buy enough to make up for the money companies are losing in energy costs. Doubtful.

I enjoyed this comparison from this column from the New York Times also exploring the wastefulness of this practice:

“It’s about as wasteful an energy practice as one can imagine,” said Mr. Goldstein, a senior lawyer for the Natural  Resources Defense Council. “It’s like leaving the gasoline station pumps gushing fuel whether the vehicles are filling up or not.”

Basically, it's just plain stupid. In a time when world leaders are trying to cut global emissions, you'd think it's be easy to just close a few doors.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 -- 6:53 p.m.

Fellow RedEye staffer Kyra Kyles (of the infamous CTA blog) tipped me off about an interesting--and very controversial--study from the Cato Institute that essentially says that rail transit isn't as eco-friendly as it seems. In fact, the report states that some rail systems emit MORE greenhouse gases than most cars (check out the whole report here).

Uh, what?

The Cato Institute (which calls itself a non-profit public policy research foundation) claims that buses feeding transit lines, combined with the construction of the lines themselves, consume large amounts of energy.

Rail transit attempts to improve the environment by changing people's behavior so that they drive less. Such behavioral efforts have been far less successful than technical solutions to toxic air pollution and other environmental problems associated with automobiles.

I'm no expert, but this just doesn't seem feasible. I don't know the specifics behind how many virtually empty buses run in any given day. And how much energy the CTA consumes building, fixing and updating rail lines isn't in my scope either. But, logically, it seems that those numbers would be offset by the fact that at least 1 million riders board CTA buses and trains daily instead of getting in their cars.

And these extra cars each day would likely create even greater amounts of carbon emissions while they're idling on the now-packed roads.

So what is the solution, according to the study?

• Powering buses with hybrid-electric motors, biofuels, and—where it comes from nonfossil fuel sources—electricity;
• Concentrating bus service on heavily used routes and using smaller buses during offpeak periods and in areas with low demand for transit service;
• Building new roads, using variable toll systems, and coordinating traffic signals to relieve the highway congestion that wastes nearly 3 billion gallons of fuel each year;
• Encouraging people to purchase more fuel-efficient cars. Getting 1 percent of commuters to switch to hybrid-electric cars will cost less and do more to save energy than getting 1 percent to switch to public transit.

Well the first two certainly make sense. Chicago already is using a few fuel-friendly buses, and investing in more of this technology can only be an advantage. But I don't think the last two would fly in a city such as Chicago. Traffic is bad as is, and it seems that all this work to the road and toll systems would expend large amounts of energy too. Not to mention the work that upkeep would require--potholes, anyone?

As for hybrid-electric cars, my argument above on extra cars on the road stands. And these cars aren't perfect--hybrids still run on some amount of gas. And many people say hybrids aren't the eco-solution we think it is. Check out Treehugger's post on how hybrids run--and the debate, as can be seen by the comments at the end of the post.

The Cato Institute's argument might have been more compelling--and convincing--had there been numbers to back it up.

Can you debunk this study, or back it up?

Wednesday February 13, 2008 -- 11 p.m.

I have an eco-confession to make ... There are no energy-efficient light bulbs in my apartment. Eek! I know, I know. It's probably the easiest change to make, and it saves me money.

I don't know how it happened. I mean, when I moved in, the energy-sucking bulbs already were there. And the few I've had to replace, I've just found around the house. It's not like I went out and bought them!

But there's no good excuse. Hell, the city was even giving the CFL bulbs away for free. So my weekend resolution is to go get the good bulbs and replace the evil ones.

(Oh, and for those of you who've heard that CFL bulbs have a bit of mercury in them and aren't good for you, check out this link or this one. They both have info on the story behind this and where to recycle your used CFLs.)

After I had my epiphany earlier today, I read a press release from ComEd talking about their "12 ways to green" campaign. So I had to investigate.

I was pretty impressed. ComEd has an entire Web site dedicated to information about Customer's Affordable Reliable Energy, or CARE, the name of their site.

Through ComEd, you can even purchase energy-efficient products--including light bulbs--for your home at a discount. And if you fill out their Home Energy Analysis, which looks pretty painless, you also can get $10 off your purchase. The downside, of course, is that they've gotta ship your purchases to you--not the eco-friendliest thing.

And I found that if you own your own home and have central air conditioning, you can sign up for Nature First, a program that allows ComEd to turn your air off for short periods of time during high-usage periods. In turn, you get a rebate. It'll make more sense if you read their version ...

It's a pretty comprehensive site as far as what kinds of things you can do to reduce your energy consumptions, and they have a ton of things that I've never thought of that are pretty simple to do.

And, if nothing else, replace a bulb this weekend.