Hummingbird Energy LLC

Massive North Atlantic Garbage Patch Mapped

natasha — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 19:26:23 +0000

Millions of pieces of plastic — most smaller than half an inch — float throughout the oceans. They are invisible to satellites, and except on very calm days you won’t even see them from the deck of a sailboat. The only way to know how much junk is out there is to tow a fine net through the water.

Scientists have gathered data from 22 years of surface net tows to map the North Atlantic garbage patch and its change over time, creating the most accurate picture yet of any pelagic plastic patch on earth.

The data were gathered by thousands of undergraduates aboard the Sea Education Association (SEA) sailing semester, who hand-picked, counted and measured more than 64,000 pieces of plastic from 6,000 net tows between 1986 to 2008.

“The highest concentrations that we observe in the North Atlantic garbage patch are comparable to that of the North Pacific, but we don’t have enough data about the size of the North Pacific one to say whether they are comparable in size,” said oceanographer Kara Law of SEA, lead author of the study published August 19 in Science.

“As far as I’m aware this is the most complete and long term data set for little bits of trash floating in the ocean,” said oceanographer Miriam Goldstein of Scripps Institution of Oceanography. “It is hard to get long term data sets of the ocean, there aren’t many programs that do it, and measure it the same way from year to year so you can compare the changes over time.”

The highest concentrations of plastic were found roughly from the latitude of Virginia to the latitude of Cuba. While they were able to clearly define the north and south boundaries of the patch, the cruise tracks didn’t venture far enough east to find the eastern boundary. They estimate the average concentration of plastic in this area is about 4,000 pieces per square mile, though it is as high as 250,000 pieces per square mile in some places.

To determine where the plastic is coming from, researchers used data from more than 1,600 satellite-tracked drifting buoys deployed between 1989 and 2009 to map surface currents in the region. More than 100 buoys passed through the Atlantic plastic region, most originating from the eastern seaboard. In most cases, the buoys reached the plastic patch in less than 60 days.

Plastic accumulated in regions called gyres, where currents circle and push water toward the center, trapping the floating bits. There are five major gyres in the the world, one in each major ocean. One surprising conclusion of the study found the concentration of plastic in the North Atlantic has remained fairly steady during the past 22 years despite a five-fold increase in global plastic production and a four-fold increase in the amount of plastic the United States discards.

“If you are increasing the amount you put in, you’d theoretically be seeing more over time,” said Law. “It makes you ask other questions about the fact that the plastic might be sinking out. I’m also fairly certain that the pieces are breaking down into pieces that are smaller than the 335 micron (0.01 inch) size of our net.”

Optimistically, the study found a 1991 program by the Environmental Protection Agency to recapture industrial plastic pellets led to a significant decrease in the average number of pellets found in the Atlantic. The pellets account for less than 10 percent of the plastic out there, but the finding suggests efforts to reduce plastic waste on land can be effective.

No one knows how long plastic stays in the ocean or where most of it ultimately will end up. Sea animals such as birds and turtles often consume plastic, sometimes carrying it to land. Some likely will sink over time or wash up on shore.

“Cleaning up what is out there is really not feasible, and would likely cause as much harm as good because of all the other small creatures in the ocean that would get filtered out too,” said Law. “So what’s left is hoping that nature break this plastic down over hundreds of years or millenia.”

“Ultimately, we need to prevent adding to what is out there,” she added.

Read Original Article at http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/08/atlantic-plastic/#ixzz0xMdJnFLr

Waste as Resource: The Unintended Consequences of Zero Waste

natasha — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:51:59 +0000

Image credit: Just for Sharing Ideas

Author: Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC USA

I was chatting with a friend who took objection to my post on anaerobic digestion. He had no problem with the concept of finding uses for waste, but cautioned that we often think uncritically about what happens next. After all, once you start using waste, it’s no longer waste. And once it’s no longer waste, you are creating demand for it. And once you create demand, supply will surely follow.

Of course this might be a slight oversimplification. But it is true to say that if you create a use for something, and therefore allow it to generate a revenue stream, you inevitably make it more economically attractive to produce more of the same. On the plus side, looking at anaerobic digestion for example, you are creating an economic incentive to collect and utilize food waste—and you are therefore making measures like San Francisco’s mandatory composting laws more economically viable, and politically palatable.

On the downside you are creating demand for biomass. And as this friend pointed out—it would be nice to think that once each waste-to-energy anaerobic digestion plant has used up the readily available stream of waste, the operator will open up another plant elsewhere to use waste there too. But that may not always be the case. Because there’s plenty of other types of biomass lying around—much of it locked up in these things we call trees.

We already know that there is plenty of opposition to waste-to-energy incinerators, and John wrote recently about the dangers of biomass dependency (aka deforestation) once oil gets scarce.

Just as incinerators often start out burning forestry waste, and end up using virgin wood once supply of “waste” runs out, so too anaerobic digestion plants may begin by using food waste, and end up utilizing forest products or other ‘biofuels’ grown deliberately for the purpose. After all, it’s often much more economically viable to ramp up capacity at an existing plant than it is to build a new one elsewhere.

I don’t believe my friend was saying we shouldn’t use waste. But we should retain a critical eye on what the consequences of that use are. And we should plan for ways to avoid unintended (or undeclared) “scope creep” for any waste to energy facility. And of course, while new supply of clean energy must always be part of the puzzle—we desperately need to crack the problem of demand if we are to have any hope of sustainability.

There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Even if someone threw it away.

Article Originally Posted at http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/08/waste-as-resource.php

Check out these related articles from PlanetGreen.com:

Vancouver Weighing Waste Options – Recycling

natasha — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:52:11 +0000

Vancouver Weighing Waste Options – Waste to Energy

natasha — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:48:23 +0000

Metro Vancouver committee recommends trash incinerator for region

natasha — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:45:50 +0000

Photograph by:
Ian Lindsay, Vancouver Sun

Metro Vancouver’s waste committee is forging ahead with a proposal to build a trash incinerator in the region despite some mayors warning that the provincial government will reject the project.

The committee on Wednesday agreed to recommend that the Metro board approve the amended solid waste management plan, which includes investigating “additional publicly-owned waste-to-energy capacity” in Metro Vancouver.

The Metro board will consider the plan on July 30 before it goes to Environment Minister Barry Penner for final approval. Penner, whose riding is Chilliwack-Hope, has previously stated that Metro has other options besides in-region incineration, including expanding the Cache Creek landfill and a proposal by Covanta Energy to build an incinerator in Gold River on Vancouver Island.

Communities in the Fraser Valley have voted unanimously against the incinerator proposal, arguing it will pollute their sensitive airshed. At least four municipalities, including Vancouver have also said they won’t support incineration until the region has explored all options to reduce waste.

“I’m very doubtful if an in-region waste facility would pass scrutiny by the provincial government,” said Port Moody Mayor Joe Trasolini, who voted against the plan. “I want to go to Victoria with something that has a reasonable chance. Our choices are waste to energy outside the region or landfill and I’m not prepared to accept a landfill anywhere.”

Both Trasolini and Port Coquitlam Mayor Greg Moore suggested Metro should instead consider building a publicly owned incinerator outside the region. Moore, who is also the chairman of the solid waste committee, said while he’s comfortable with the incinerator technology, “opposition will be quite fierce” in Metro Vancouver and he expects the proposal would get multiple bids outside the region.

But Metro Vancouver chief administrative officer Johnny Carline said a new $470-million incinerator in the region is staff’s preferred option to deal with the up to 500,000 tonnes of additional garbage per year that can’t otherwise be recycled. By building it here, he said, Metro would have more control over the garbage as well as the revenues from electricity and heat sales, not to mention it would be cheaper than trucking the trash away.

In a report to the committee, Carline noted Metro would first have to determine the availability of suitable sites, cost, performance relative to environmental and health impacts, and other local benefits before going ahead with the project. And if it wasn’t feasible or Metro wanted to reach a “political compromise,” he said, it could then investigate building an incinerator outside the region instead or continue using the landfill, he said.

“On balance, Metro Vancouver staff would still recommend an in-region preference, but as a second choice would suggest an approach that gives no preference to either in-region or out of region solution and allow the procurement process to decide between them,” Carline said in his report.

As far as the Fraser Valley’s concerns, Carline said there is no science to support that the incinerator will have a huge affect on pollution. He noted Fraser Valley residents are already burning in their backyards.

But he noted the plan was amended to include an assessment of human health risks before any incinerator is built as well as more transparent monitoring and reporting of emissions from the facility. The plan also included a stipulation to “progressively shut down” the Burnaby incinerator if the region’s garbage continues to decrease.

Patricia Ross, chairwoman of the Fraser Valley Regional District, said she was disappointed with the committee’s decision noting that “most of the pollution in the Fraser Valley is outside of ours … from the U.S. and Metro Vancouver.” But she noted there’s still hope as the matter goes before the Metro board as well as Penner.

“They just went through this major round of consultation,” she said, noting that the incinerator debate has drawn opposition from chambers of commerce, CUPE, the Wilderness Committee and Pembina Institute, among others. “There’s not a whole lot in favour. How often do we have environmentalists and the business sector united in opposition?

“There’s still hope; there are people on the Metro board opposed to this.”

Chilliwack chamber president Jason Lum was at the meeting and he said there were “minimal changes” made to the draft proposal that was presented in Chilliwack on June 16 and that was widely opposed by local residents, including Mayor Sharon Gaetz and Chilliwack MLA John Les.

Lum said the decision does not take the health and environmental concerns of Fraser Valley residents seriously.

“Although the Fraser Valley taxpayer sadly can do little to hold Metro Vancouver politicians accountable for the decision made today they will have to be accountable to their own tax base in their local jurisdictions when they find out the financial planning for the in region incinerator has been woefully inadequate and poorly communicated,” Lum said in a press release issued Wednesday.

But there are also those in favour. Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan agreed the incinerator was the most logical alternative to landfills. He noted his city has been “hosting” an incinerator for the past 20 years and there have been no complaints from residents.

“Passing that on to another community in B.C. doesn’t solve the problem,” he said. “The garbage was created here and we need to find a solution right here to deal with it.”

New Westminster Mayor Wayne Wright agreed. “From our city’s point of view, this is the viable way to go, ” he said, but acknowledged that “it’ll be a tough sell; it’ll be political and a very hard road.”

Surrey Coun. Linda Hepner said she would like to get a cost comparison of having an incinerator in Metro Vancouver or outside the region, while White Rock Coun. Mary-Wade Anderson predicted that within five years “we’ll be laughing at the concerns that we had about waste to energy.”

The incinerator was recommended to take the 500,000 tonnes of garbage that is now being trucked to the Cache Creek dump.

Metro Vancouver produces about 1.4 million tonnes of garbage every year. The solid-waste management plan aims to raise recycling rates from 55 per cent of garbage today to 70 per cent by 2015.

ksinoski@vancouversun.com

- with files from the Chilliwack Times

The End of Waste

natasha — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 19:22:51 +0000

NPR.org – Methane Causes Vicious Cycle In Global Warming

natasha — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:54:02 +0000

Authour: Richard Harris

January 26, 2010

Carbon dioxide is the gas we most associate with global warming, but methane gas also plays an important role. For reasons that are not well understood, methane gas stopped increasing in the atmosphere in the 1990s. But now it appears to be once again on the rise. Scientists are trying to understand why — and what to do about it.

Methane gas comes from all sorts of sources including wetlands, rice paddies, cow tummies, coal mines, garbage dumps and even termites. Drew Shindell, at NASA’s Goddard Institute in New York, says, “It’s gone up by 150 percent since the pre-industrial period. So that’s an enormous increase. CO2, by contrast, has gone up by something like 30 percent.”

Molecule for molecule, methane is much more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere. And that’s just part of the trouble.

“Methane is much more complicated once it gets into the atmosphere than something like carbon dioxide is,” Shindell says, “and that’s because it reacts with a lot of different important chemicals.”

Bad For Climate And Health

For example, methane in the atmosphere also creates ground-level ozone. And ozone isn’t only bad for human health; it also contributes to global warming. Shindell recently totaled up all the effects of methane emissions and realized that the heating effect is more than 60 percent that of carbon dioxide’s.

“So that tells you that methane is a pretty big player.”

Methane in the atmosphere leveled off in the 1990s, so it seemed that efforts to control industrial emissions were keeping this problem gas in check. But since 2007, methane levels have been on the rise again.

Wetlands Cause Vicious Cycle

A study published last week in Science magazine suggests that at least part of this increase is coming from the vast wetlands in Canada, Russia and the Arctic. The methane in wetlands comes from naturally occurring bacteria. But study author Paul Palmer at the University of Edinburgh says the bacteria are producing more methane because the temperature is rising.

“The higher the temperature, the more efficient they are at producing methane,” he says. So global warming is causing these wetlands to produce more methane. And the methane is causing more global warming.

Global warming is causing these wetlands to produce more methane. And the methane is causing more global warming.

- Paul Palmer, University of Edinburgh

“This really does demonstrate the fact that we are having this vicious cycle in the climate system. And we’re seeing it now.”

It’s not yet to the stage where it’s a runaway warming effect, Palmer says. But climate scientists are worried that we could hit that tipping point.

There’s no obvious way to control methane from natural wetlands other than to keep them from overheating. But at least half of methane emissions are from human activities, ranging from cattle-rearing and natural gas exploration to coal mining.

Capturing Methane Cost-Effective

Since methane is the main ingredient of natural gas, efforts to capture it can actually pay for themselves. You use the gas for energy. And Shindell says there are other benefits of controlling methane. Methane contributes to ozone, which costs society real money because of its human health effects, and ozone also damages crops.

“So if you account for all the economics, all the gains that you get through the benefits of controlling methane that aren’t even related to climate, you find that many of the reductions you could make actually pay for themselves,” Shindell says.

Even so, there’s relatively little effort now to control methane. Mohamed El-Ashry at the United Nations Foundation says part of the reason has been a fear by governments and advocates that attacking methane would be a dangerous distraction.

“People are worried about diverting attention away from carbon dioxide,” he says. “But that shouldn’t really be the case at all.”

Restart Methane Projects

Both problems need to be solved sooner or later. But global methane projects practically ground to a halt last year.

El-Ashry says that was partly because of uncertainty over the outcome of the global warming talks in Copenhagen, and partly because of the global financial crisis. Credit wasn’t available to finance methane projects, even though they were ready to go.

El-Ashry is part of a group advocating for a new $200 million fund to help jump-start these methane programs again.

“Here is an opportunity to have an immediate effect in terms of impacts, particularly on the Arctic, and secondary impacts, like on health,” he says.

And the good thing about methane is that it stays in the air for only about a decade, so if you can reduce emissions, you can see quick results.

Original Link

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122638800