The UK Times Online has done a story on a couple who live on the Shetland Islands who live a carbon neutral lifestyle. Their house has a zero-carbon footprint and the couple who live in it do so “off grid”.
The house has double glazed windows filled with argon gas. The insulation in the house is 140mm of expanded foam. Power is supplied by a 2.5kW wind turbine. The house is so well sealed that little cold and moisture get in while no heat escapes.
The house uses a fuel cell and under flooring heating is created by an air-to-water heat pump. Heat recovery is used to recapture 90 per cent of the heat generated within it helping to provide constant warm indoor temperatures.
Contrary to the belief of many that it would cost an inordinate sum of money to maintain a house like this, the cost of the four bedroom cottage was around £210,000.
Apart from the fuell cell to heat the water tank, all the other items that go into making this house such a brilliant carbon footprint defeater are available off the shelf.
Owing to the size of the carbon footprint that is produced by such a house, this project taking place on the Shetland Islands is generating quite a bit of interest around the world.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Monday, September 8, 2008
The Carbon Footprint of Your T-Shirt
The carbon footprint of your clothes could be excessively large depending on how you wash them, how you dry them and how often you do your laundry. Research done by a Queensland University of Technology researcher has assessed t-shirts, comparing cotton to polyester in areas such as the production, use and disposal and the impact on the environment.
The research has taken the life cycle of a t-shirt measuring the impact of the growth and production of the materials used to make it, the environmental cost of its manufacture, transporting it, retail, wear and disposal.
It turns out that over this lifetime, around 75 per cent of the t-shirts carbon footprint will be caused by machine washing and drying (around 19 per cent of the life-cycle energy consumption on washing and 53 per cent on tumble drying). The figure falls significantly if you dry the t-shirt on a clothesline as opposed to frequently tumble drying it.
The study also concluded that the manufacture of a polyester t-shirt will consume slightly higher levels of energy.
A goal of the study was to analyse the effect of increasing the number of times the t-shirt is worn before washing. It was found that a polyester t-shirt is more prone to sweat odour than a cotton t-shirt. Therefore, it would be more likely that you would get away with wearing a cotton t-shirt multiple times before washing it reducing the carbon footprint of the cotton t-shirt over its lifetime.
The research has taken the life cycle of a t-shirt measuring the impact of the growth and production of the materials used to make it, the environmental cost of its manufacture, transporting it, retail, wear and disposal.
It turns out that over this lifetime, around 75 per cent of the t-shirts carbon footprint will be caused by machine washing and drying (around 19 per cent of the life-cycle energy consumption on washing and 53 per cent on tumble drying). The figure falls significantly if you dry the t-shirt on a clothesline as opposed to frequently tumble drying it.
The study also concluded that the manufacture of a polyester t-shirt will consume slightly higher levels of energy.
A goal of the study was to analyse the effect of increasing the number of times the t-shirt is worn before washing. It was found that a polyester t-shirt is more prone to sweat odour than a cotton t-shirt. Therefore, it would be more likely that you would get away with wearing a cotton t-shirt multiple times before washing it reducing the carbon footprint of the cotton t-shirt over its lifetime.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Lights
Turn your lights off or keep your lights on, it’s a decision we all have to make and it’s a decision that has far-reaching implications on an environmental, societal and economical level. But it’s also one of the many contentious issues that constantly come up in the debate over how we might reduce out carbon emissions.
As a matter of fact, every damn thing about carbon emissions and greenhouse gases seems to be contentious. It’s getting to the point where you can’t try to better the world we live in without some know-all ignoramus pulling a half-baked scientific “fact” from their arse and claiming that it is gospel. Idiots cite "hundreds of scientists" out of the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world who reject global warming as proff it's not happening.
“The world’s temperatures aren’t rising.” “It’s all part of an ebbing and flowing climate that has nothing to do with the horrendous amounts of pollution we pump into the air every day.” “Reducing carbon emissions is just a plan for governments to take more money off us.”
There have been dumbass nay-sayers for as long as there have been enlightened visionaries willing to take bold action or make brave predictions. With today’s communications systems being what they are these sorts of people are just so much more noticeable. Heck, look at some of the halfwits who make comments on sites like Renewable Energy World and the like.
Believers who are truly committed to making a difference will always win out against the lazy criticizing weaklings who prefer to hide at home and pour scorn on others.
As a matter of fact, every damn thing about carbon emissions and greenhouse gases seems to be contentious. It’s getting to the point where you can’t try to better the world we live in without some know-all ignoramus pulling a half-baked scientific “fact” from their arse and claiming that it is gospel. Idiots cite "hundreds of scientists" out of the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world who reject global warming as proff it's not happening.
“The world’s temperatures aren’t rising.” “It’s all part of an ebbing and flowing climate that has nothing to do with the horrendous amounts of pollution we pump into the air every day.” “Reducing carbon emissions is just a plan for governments to take more money off us.”
There have been dumbass nay-sayers for as long as there have been enlightened visionaries willing to take bold action or make brave predictions. With today’s communications systems being what they are these sorts of people are just so much more noticeable. Heck, look at some of the halfwits who make comments on sites like Renewable Energy World and the like.
Believers who are truly committed to making a difference will always win out against the lazy criticizing weaklings who prefer to hide at home and pour scorn on others.
SDG&E Adds 40 Megawatts of Geothermal Energy
San Diego Gas & Electric has signed a power-purchase agreement with Esmeralda Truckhaven to supply 40 megawatts (MW) of geothermal energy to the region's electric system. The agreement will boost SDG&E's total geothermal energy supply to 60 MW produced from Esmeralda facilities located in Imperial County, California.
Just to get an idea about how much electricty we're talking abot, a megawatt is the equivalent energy needed to power 650 homes.
A quote to celebrate the deal: "The Imperial County is a renewable mecca for our region's future energy supply," said Debra L. Reed, president and chief executive officer of SDG&E. "As we continue to aggressively seek out renewable sources of energy to meet the state's 20-percent-by-2010 mandate, we will look to renewable developers such as Esmeralda to help us expand our renewable energy footprint throughout the county."
In addition to the Esmeralda contract, SDG&E also received approval of its Envirepel agreement from the California Public Utilities Commission. The Envirepel agreement is for 1.5 MW of biomass energy to be produced at a facility being developed in Vista, California.
Around five percent of SDG&E's energy-resource mix comes from renewable resources such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal. SDG&E has continuously pursued renewable energy with market solicitations every year since 2002. In the most recent solicitation, developers bid more than 5,000 MW of renewable energy for a majority of projects that would be built in the Imperial Valley.
Just to get an idea about how much electricty we're talking abot, a megawatt is the equivalent energy needed to power 650 homes.
A quote to celebrate the deal: "The Imperial County is a renewable mecca for our region's future energy supply," said Debra L. Reed, president and chief executive officer of SDG&E. "As we continue to aggressively seek out renewable sources of energy to meet the state's 20-percent-by-2010 mandate, we will look to renewable developers such as Esmeralda to help us expand our renewable energy footprint throughout the county."
In addition to the Esmeralda contract, SDG&E also received approval of its Envirepel agreement from the California Public Utilities Commission. The Envirepel agreement is for 1.5 MW of biomass energy to be produced at a facility being developed in Vista, California.
Around five percent of SDG&E's energy-resource mix comes from renewable resources such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal. SDG&E has continuously pursued renewable energy with market solicitations every year since 2002. In the most recent solicitation, developers bid more than 5,000 MW of renewable energy for a majority of projects that would be built in the Imperial Valley.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)