The injection of wastewater from oil and gas production deep into the ground has been known to cause quakes within months, but the 2011 temblor in Oklahoma occurred after nearly two decades.
The injection of wastewater from oil and gas production deep into the ground has been known to cause quakes within months, but the 2011 temblor in Oklahoma occurred after nearly two decades.
March 31st thru April 6th has been designated as National Week of the Ocean 2013.
The nation is invited to participate annually in the April National Week of the Ocean by observing moments as casual as an evening reading the classic Moby Dick or penning an editorial to the local paper on marine issues. Organizations, schools and businesses are encouraged to plan a special event which can attract the attention and support of the whole community. The ongoing theme “Exploring Mother Ocean” offers many possibilities to spotlight the ocean’s rich heritage and promise.
National Week of the Ocean is supported by seven renowned ocean pioneers headed by astronaut/aquanaut Scott Carpenter. The pioneers include Norman Baker, navigator of Thor Heyerdahl’s Ra I and II voyages; Eugenie Clark, famed zoologist; Sylvia Earle, noted marine biologist; Tap Pryor, aquaculture pioneer; Andreas Rechnitzer, record diver, Trieste; and Stan Waterman, Emmy award-winning underwater photographer.
National co-chairs do caution us, however. Carpenter warns that “Life on dry land is dependent on the ocean and if the ocean dies, we die.” Baker reminds us that the ocean serves both a practical and aesthetic purpose. “The ocean is refreshing to the soul,” he says. “We must allow the oceans to balance and grow at their normal rate. Overpopulating the earth may damage the food source for future generations.”
Rechnitzer concludes that NOW is the appropriate time for man to demonstrate his stewardship of what may prove to be one of mankind’s greatest remaining resources.
All agree that endeavors such as Week of the Ocean are important ways in which to
educate and interest the public.
To find out more click here.
Tell us in the comments how you will be celebrating the ocean this week.
Hmmm… Aren’t we on Spring Break?
It is 6:00am Saturday, the first day of Spring Break for the Saint Thomas Academy Experimental Vehicle Team. As I walk out the door a blast of 10°F (-12°C) air strikes me in the face. This won’t be a good day to test the vehicles! Ah, Spring in Minnesota.
After a quick stop for donuts (students need energy to be creative!) I arrive at school. Big surprise, I’m the only person there! The first couple of hours are spent answering emails, ordering last minute supplies, and going through the “to do” list for the day. One of the things I have learned over time is that much more gets done if a “plan o’ the day” is in place. After I’ve already consumed three cups of coffee, the first students stumble into my room with hairstyles that could only be done by Mr. Pillow. It was time to get to work!
When we last left our story, we were convinced that the prototype car would go smoothly and the urban concept car would be fraught with peril. How wrong we were! As the team was going through the rules, double-checking we comply, the 6-meter turning radius reared its ugly head. “No problem,” one student says. Famous last words….
A quick circle is set up in the cafeteria (the maintenance crew at our school has always been very supportive!) and the small, carbon prototype sets off. After a few modifications the car made the circle. “We should check it with the body on,” our student director suggests. Failure! The car isn’t even close to making the 12-meter circle. This is a huge problem that will ultimately lead to some drastic measures.
While our prototype car is sitting in “time-out,” our urban concept vehicle is slowly getting finished. Lights and turn signals are in, suitcase door is cut and installed, and the frame is back up on wheels. While all of the mechanical systems of the car are installed for the final time our electric team is hustling to finish a very complicated monitor/management system. With Pandaboards (on-board computers) and touch screens in each car, the driver and pit crew will (or hopes to!) have up-to-the second data during each efficiency attempt. It looks very complicated, but they assure me that it will work. To say I’m a little skeptical is an understatement! Let’s hope it isn’t our Achilles Heel on our “Road to Houston.”
Shell* Eco-marathon Americas, a fuel-efficiency race where students design and build futuristic vehicles that are then driven on the streets of downtown Houston, Texas, kicks off on April 4. Shell followed three student teams across the Americas, capturing their trials and tribulations as they prepared for the race. In the first episode, Canada’s Alérion Supermileage team is struggling in their determination to regain victory; the US team Let’s Do It Again must step up the pace; and tensions simmer within the e³- USFC team in Brazil. Watch below:
* Shell is sponsor of National Geographic’s Great Energy Challenge initiative. National Geographic maintains autonomy over content.
The ethanol mandate in gasoline is starting to sting.
In a news article published in Science magazine last week, journalist Robert Service writes: “This year is shaping up to be decisive for ‘cellulosic’ ethanol made from corn stalks and other agricultural waste, as oil companies and the ethanol industry clash over government mandates for the automotive fuel.”
What’s going on? Let’s start with a brief primer on the use of ethanol in America’s automobile.
As a libation, ethanol’s been around for a long, long time. As a fuel, it dates back to 1826 when it was first used in an internal combustion engine. Ethanol was also the fuel that ran the 1908 version of the Ford Model T. But “the decreasing cost of oil (and US prohibition)” among other factors turned Ford’s “fuel of the future” into a fuel of the past and, with the exception of World War II [pdf], there it remained for much of the mid-20th century where the fuel of choice on America’s roadways was ethanol-free gasoline.
Congress’s Love Affair With Ethanol
Starting in the late 1970s, however, ethanol began to creep its way back into our fuel tanks, at first in response to oil shortages [pdf] and the Clean Air Act’s mandated phase-out of leaded gasoline (ethanol supplanted lead as an additive to enhance octane). Demand for ethanol increased as Congress began actively encouraging and then mandating its use in cars. For example, a 1978 tax break for ethanol-blended gasoline was followed by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, whose requirements included the presence of an oxygenated compound such as ethanol in gasoline to produce cleaner automobile emissions and thus cleaner air.
More recently, Congress upped the ethanol ante with two renewable fuel standards: the 2005 Energy Policy Act “required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into gasoline by 2012” and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 greatly expanded the program by:
Why the Love?
Knowing what’s behind Congress’s passion for ethanol as a fuel is not quite as inscrutable as knowing what sparks romantic love, so let’s look at some possibilities. First and perhaps foremost, ethanol is a homegrown energy source and one that was aided by a healthy tariff on imported ethanol that excluded Brazilian ethanol from competing in the U.S. market. It’s reasonable to assume Congress was considering national security. But that’s not all.
The desired air-quality improvements from the 1990 CAA were to be achieved, in part, by adding ethanol or a similarly oxygenated compound to the hydrocarbon chains of fossil fuels thus adding oxygen and encouraging a more complete and cleaner burn. But I’d take that with a bit salt. The evidence (see here and here) that that ethanol mandate actually led to significantly improved air quality is pretty thin.
That brings us to the renewable fuel standards. As summarized in a report [pdf] by the Congressional Research Service, the 2005 and 2007 mandates were aimed at alleviating our “increasing dependence on foreign sources of crude oil, concerns over global climate change, and the desire to promote domestic rural economies.” But like the air-quality mandate, there’s room for some skepticism here. For example, the climate benefits of ethanol have been challenged by a number of investigators (see here, here and here).
Which brings us to the other reason listed above: desire to promote domestic rural economies. Here I think we’ve found pay dirt — but not for any old rural economy, just the ones that grow corn.
Virtually all of today’s U.S.-produced ethanol comes from corn. So ethanol mandates raise the demand for corn — making it a commodity wanted not only for food but also for fuel. And so the result? Corn prices rise, and American corn growers benefit. Voting for the mandate means making the very powerful National Corn Growers Association happy. Voting against it, let alone trying to remove it, means risking the wrath of the lobby.
And then there’s Iowa. Ever wonder why in recent memory there’s near-unanimous support for ethanol mandates among presidential candidates? Could it have anything to do with the all-important caucuses in Iowa, a state also known as the Corn State where 90 percent of its land is agricultural?
With all those reasons going for it, you’d think the 2007 ethanol mandate would be sitting pretty. In fact, as noted by Service in that Science article, the mandate is in serious trouble.
Problem #1: Plenty of Ethanol, Not Enough Gasoline
Times change. In 2007 a trend was clear — gasoline consumption was on the rise. For an ethanol mandate to have teeth over time, the amount of ethanol produced, Congress reasoned, would also need to increase over time. And so federal mandates [pdf] required that the total volume of renewable fuel would increase (from 9 billion gallons to 36 billion gallons) with corn ethanol maxing out at 15 billion gallons per year.
The problem is that gasoline consumption did not increase as anticipated (see graphic below). First came the economic downturn of 2008 and then a hankering for more fuel-efficient cars. As a result, since peaking in late 2007, U.S. gasoline consumption has slowly declined (see graphic).
That’s generally good news. But for the ethanol mandate … not so much. The vast majority of U.S. cars are designed to use a fuel mix that contains no more than 10 percent ethanol, and most gas stations are set up for gasoline with a maximum ethanol content of 10 percent. So consider what happens if total gasoline consumption goes down while the total amount of ethanol required to be mixed with the gasoline increases? Eventually you hit what is known as the “ethanol blend wall” where any addition of ethanol to the mix will result in a fuel that is more than 10 percent ethanol. (See here and here [pdf].)
So how close is that ethanol blend wall? For all intents and purposes we’ve hit it. In 2012, the Energy Information Administration reports [pdf], the average ethanol content in U.S. gasoline was 9.7 percent. (See graphic).
Suffice it to say, something’s gotta give. Either American cars need a mandated retrofit that would allow for a higher percentage of ethanol (just how expensive such a retrofit would be is up for debate — see here and here) or the 2007 mandate needs to be relaxed.
Problem #2: Not Enough of the Good Stuff (Cellulosic Ethanol)
Corn ethanol, like most alcoholic beverages, is produced from a plant’s starches and sugars. (Ethanol is “denatured “ to make it undrinkable.) But it’s corn ethanol’s cousin cellulosic ethanol – which is derived from a plant’s inedible cellulose (a major rigid component of plants) — that’s generally viewed as the ethanol of the future. Why? Plants have far more cellulose than starches and sugars. And so there’s much more stuff available to produce cellulosic ethanol than corn ethanol. At least in theory we can produce a lot more cellulosic ethanol than corn ethanol.
That’s in theory. In practice it hasn’t yet worked out that way. Turning cellulose into ethanol is a difficult task, made even more difficult with commercial viability as a goal. Giving a legislative leg-up is one way to overcome the hurdles of developing a commercial enterprise — and that’s essentially what the federally mandated increases in cellulosic ethanol in gasoline blends were intended in part to do but they have not worked.
The industry has simply not been able to make enough cellulosic ethanol to meet the mandates. In 2012, for example, instead of the 8.65 million gallons required by the Environmental Protection Agency, just 20,000 gallons of cellulosic ethanol were produced. Normally refiners would be required to purchase credits to make up the difference, but the American Petroleum Industry took EPA to court — and won (see decision [pdf]). EPA later eliminated the 2012 requirements ($ub req’ed). Meanwhile, the mandated totals for 2013 are expected to be challenged in court, even though 2013 is the year cellulosic fuel is expected by the biofuel industry to make good.
The Ethanol Mandate on the Ropes
So what’s in store? In his article in Science Service predicts a knock-down, drag-out fight “pitting the world’s largest oil and car companies against giant agricultural firms and Midwest farmers.” And the oil industry is primed for the kill with Charles Drevna, president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, now calling for the repeal of the renewable fuel standards. Meanwhile several bills floating through Congress aim to slash the cellulosic ethanol mandate.
We’ll have to wait to see, but it could be that the Congressional romance with ethanol will turn out to be a perfect love gone wrong.
With less than two weeks left until the competition, the Illini EcoConcept team is busy finishing the vehicle over spring break. This is only the second year for the team. In our first year we brought a hydrogen fuel cell powered “urban concept” vehicle and took first place. This year we would like to improve our efficiency further and defend our title. At the same time, we’re taking our vehicle to the next level. While the 2013 car has been designed to be exceedingly efficient, it has also been designed to seat two people and reach at least 30 mph.
Purdue Solar Racing (PSR) has shown tremendous strides over our 22-year history. With a car that failed to qualify at Sunrayce as our starting point, we could only go up. PSR was founded on the principle of building and racing solar cars as well as educating the public on alternative forms of energy. Through improvements and learning, our team eventually produced Pulsar for the 2010 Shell Eco-marathon.
Pulsar drove away with first place in the solar division, the Technical Innovation Award for patent-pending carbon fiber layup process and telemetry systems, and the Communication Award for reaching out to the community through events and teaching about solar racing as well as renewable energy.
Purdue Solar Racing’s continued growth and learning was evident with our eighth car, Celeritas. PSR focused on an Urban Concept Vehicle, a valuable and forward-thinking perspective in our current environment, winning the concept category with 2,175 miles per gallon. In 2012, PSR again won the Urban Concept Vehicle category at the Shell Eco-Marathon with an improved mpg of 2,250.
Over the years, PSR has consistently won awards for teamwork and communication, as with the Sportsmanship Award in 1999 (for helping out Ohio State with technical problems) and the ‘0-66’ Award in 2003 (for showing the most improvement during a race). PSR is entering our ninth car, Navitas, in this year’s Eco-marathon. With a sleeker design, Navitas is designed to travel more efficiently with an increased mpg and a decrease in weight, while maintaining the eligibility to be scientifically street legalized. (See related post: “Purdue: Nearly Street Legal, Powered by Sun“)
Navitas provided us with design challenges that tested the strength of our team. Due in part to the limitation of solar cells set by Eco-marathon rules, PSR has worked hard to overcome the challenges and provide technical solutions that ensure positive power is obtained. Navitas is expected to weigh more than 50 percent less than Celeritas, as well as using four and a half times fewer solar cells. PSR put in the dedicated hours we are known for and look forward to completing the finishing touches before Navitas is ready for the streets and unveiling on March 22.
According to Discovery News, a solar-powered plane will soon be attempting a trek across the U.S. The itinerary of the 2013 Across America mission will be announced at a press conference at Moffett Airfield in San Francisco this Thursday, March 28th.
A plane that can fly on solar power, day or night, will make its way across the United States this summer — the first time the plane has attempted a cross-continental flight.
The Solar Impulse — built as a project of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, the brainchild of Bertrand Piccard and André Borschberg — has the wingspan of a 747 but only weighs as much a Honda Prius. It flies thanks to four turboprop engines powered entirely by batteries and solar panels.
Borschberg told Discovery News that the although the plane could make the whole trip from California to New York in one go, the pilot cannot. The plane travels at 40 to 50 miles per hour, so a cross-country flight would take days. And since there’s only room for a single person in the cockpit, in part to save weight, and no autopilot, the trip will have to be broke up into five legs.
Weight was a big part of the design constraint. The designers needed to find material that was light but also strong. They settled on carbon fiber, which is lighter than any metals.
During its flight, Solar Impulse will maintain a specific altitude about 29,000 feet, where the engines operate with maximum efficiency. All things normal, the Solar Impulse could, Borschberg said, could travel for 20 hours. The longest commercial flight is somewhat less than that – 18.5 hours for the trip from Newark to Singapore (that route is scheduled to be discontinued). And eventually longer flights will be tested. The second iteration of the Solar Impulse will have the ability to house two pilots and support them for days at a time.
Read the rest of the story from Discovery News here.
On the front page of the Times Leader today, there is a great story about several seniors from Pittston Area and how they helped to bring a single stream recycling program to their high school.
For Tara Craig, it was an idea more than a decade overdue. For Matthew Yatison, James Musto and Cory Tobin, it was an idea worth money for four years into the future.
“I’ve been here 12 years and it’s always bothered me that we don’t recycle,” Craig, a computer teacher at Pittston Area High School said when asked about the district’s new “Project Green” single-stream recycling at the high school.
But persistence pays.
When a new administration came in last summer, Craig pitched the idea again. This time, it took. Superintendent Michael Garzella backed the idea, and Northeast Recycling Solutions offered the same deal to the district it has been giving to local municipalities: You collect it, we’ll recycle it, no charge.
The result: The high school now has single-stream recycling, with dozens of small bins — donated by local municipalities, Craig noted — in classrooms and labs accepting everything from aluminum foil to water bottles.
Read the rest of the story from the Times Leader here.
The cleanup event is an annual effort sponsored by PennDOT, Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful, state Department of Environmental Protection and other partners. Groups involved in PennDOT’s Adopt-A-Highway (AAH) program, which involves volunteers cleaning roadsides year round, are also encouraged to participate in the cleanup.
Interested individuals can find a listing of cleanup events, resources for organizing a cleanup, and other information about the effort online at www.gacofpa.org.
Groups interested in adopting a section of highway are encouraged to contact their local PennDOT County Maintenance office and ask for the AAH coordinator, or visit www.dot.state.pa.us.
During last year’s Great American Cleanup, 6.7 million pounds of litter was collected from Pennsylvania’s roads, trails and shorelines by more than 141,000 volunteers. PennDOT’s AAH program contributed nearly 78,000 volunteers who cleaned up nearly 53 percent of the collected litter on 10,960 miles of cleaned up roadway.
This year, cleanup partner Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful is hosting its first-ever Great American Cleanup Video Contest. Interested individuals can send a three-to-five-minute video of their cleanup event to Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful by May 24, with eventual voting on the group’s Facebook page. For contest rules and information visit www.gacofpa.org.
Through the AAH program, volunteers collect litter on a two-mile section of state highway four times a year. The program currently has nearly 7,000 participating groups, more than 125,000 volunteers and 15,834 miles of adopted state-maintained roadways.
In addition to the event, during the “Pick it Up PA Days” from April 20 to May 6 registered events have access to free disposal at participating landfills. PennDOT provides gloves, trash bags and safety vests to AAH and Great American Cleanup of PA groups.