According to The Thorium Dream by Motherboard TV, it is because two major nuclear powerhouses want it that way.  The other reason mentioned was that the current reactors, using 60 year old technology, are what we are comfortable with and what we know works.  The fact that there have been major disasters like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and, most recently, Fukishima have shown that that doesn’t make them safe and the results are devastating when they fail.

Enter Thorium as the miracle that will save us as fossil fuel supplies dry up and current Uranium reactors are viewed as too dangerous.  Rather than using solid fuel rods like light water reactors(LWR) do, Thorium reactors use a liquid Thorium salt mixture.  It doesn’t require redundant safety mechanisms in part because it doesn’t blow up.  Unlike Uranium, you can’t make bombs out of Thorium.

Richard Martin talked about Thorium on The Leonard Lapate Show.  According to Martin, the amount of Thorium needed to produce electricity is significantly less than needed in a Uranium reactor.  A liquid Thorium-Fluoride salt reactor is actually a breeder reactor where it creates more fuel as it producing electricity.  These types of reactors would require less maintenance and could run longer on the same fuel producing less nuclear waste.  Should something happen to the reactor it would not blow up.  At the bottom of the reactor is a and salt plug that would melt draining the radioactive fuel into a lead lined safety chamber. In other words we are talking about a type of nuclear reactor that is much safer than Uranium reactors, with less waste, and less maintenance.

A Thorium reactor was brought on line in the 1960’s but was shut down after 6 years primarily because market forces decided to continue focusing on Uranium reactors.  Watch The Thorium Dream to get a better picture on why. While the United States may have taken a pass on these safer types of reactors, other countries like India and China are funding Thorium research and will probably have Thorium reactors before we will. 

Unlike fossil fuels, Thorium doesn’t produce any carbon byproducts which makes it cleaner even than natural gas.  It is readily available so one country or area of the world, think OPEC, can’t manipulate the cost.  It would not require such risky methods as fracking or trying to extract oil from shale using pollution producing methods.

All in all it looks as if Thorium reactors would actually help solve a number of our energy problems.  While renewable energy is continuing to grow, it is growing so slowly that we still use coal fired plants for much of our electricity.  Thorium nuclear reactors would produce cleaner electricity.  We would have cheaper electricity and could power our lives (including cars) using only a golf ball size of Thorium. 

The Thorium Dream will become reality.  Too bad it won’t happen here first.

More information on Thorium can be found here and here.

According to Gas2 the $10,000 would be applied to natural gas vehicles as well other green technology cars which presumably takes in hybrids as well as EVs.  The rebate as opposed to the tax credit would mean that more people would be able to purchase these green technology vehicles.

Right now the only people who can afford cars like the Tesla S car, Chevy Volt, or even Nissan Leaf have to have a fairly good income to shell out $36,000 to $60,000 for a car.  If the $10,000 is taken off the front end, it moves at least a couple of the cars like the Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Volt into the affordable range at $26,000 and $31,000 respectively.

If manufacturers can get more people buying these green tech vehicles than they can produce more of the cars which in turn lowers the price.  It’s simply that higher production means lower costs for all involved. 

While Obama may be trying to help the adoption of green vehicles, Congress is another matter.  The Republican majority in the House is rabidly pro-fossil fuels and anti-green anything.  Getting any part of Obama’s budget through is going to be difficult.  Getting this particular provision through may be just about impossible in this coming election year.

Too bad we have a Republican leadership whose stated goal is to make Obama a one term president.  If they were more interested in helping car manufacturers and in turn consumers, we might see this little piece of goodness passed.  Ford, Chevrolet, Tesla, GM and other American car companies would benefit from the passage of this provision. 

Maybe we’ll be lucky and this provision will actually sneak through on rider to prolong Exxon and BP’s gas subsidies.  Stranger things have happened.

Safran Group and Honeywell announced that easyJet will begin testing the EGTS in 2013. The companies hope to begin providing the system for new airplanes and as a retrofit by 2016. As the UK’s biggest airline with 604 routes to 130 airports in 29 countries, easyJet will be able to give the system a thorough testing.

Due to the high frequency and short sector lengths of easyJet’s operations, around 4% of total fuel consumed annually is used when the airline’s aircraft are taxiing. easyJet’s aircraft average 20 minutes of taxi time per flight – the equivalent of 3.5 million miles a year.

The tests will make sure that the fuel savings are actually realized and will determine other benefits of the system. 

Each wheel is fitted not only with a motor but also with an electromechanical actuator and unique power electronics and system controllers. One benefits of this new system will be the increased maneuverability and control over speed, direction and braking of the plane as it approaches the docking area. Currently planes are tugged into the docks.  The new system should reduce or eliminate the need for the final assist.

Cutting down on fuel costs isn’t the only reason to look for innovative ways to incorporate electrical systems and and reduce fuel use.  The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) went into effect on January 1 of this year.  That scheme requires airlines using European airports to account for their greenhouse gases.  The idea behind the EU ETS is to speed up the adoption of green technologies, like this one, in aviation.

Although The New York Times has reported that the EU is willing to suspend some portions of the directive that doesn’t mean that this type of innovation will cease.  One of the conditions of suspending portions of the ETS is that a global system would need to be developed that would go beyond the ETS in achieving reductions of green house gases in aviation.

While the four percent reduction in fuel might not seem like a lot, it is one step of many, like the combination of weight reduction and more powerful batteries increases the distance that an electric vehicle can travel.  Safran, Honeywell and easyJet are testing a system that with the addition of other innovations like jet biofuels will reduce greenhouse gas emission and make breathing easier.

According to NASA the current fuel it uses is hydrazine.  It is a highly toxic and corrosive fuel.  It can be stored for long periods of time and provides the energy necessary for rocket launches but it is hazardous to the environment.  NASA wants a cleaner greener alternative.

Madsci.org has an article that describes the four types of fuel normally used for rocket launches – solid, cryogenic, petroleum and hypergolic.  The space shuttle used three of these types.  According to Starts with a Bang, the solid fuel rocket used a noxious fuel called ammonium pecholorate composite that creates hydrogen chloride which mixed with water makes hydrochloric acid.  The second fuel used was liquid hydrogen that expelled water vapor, by far the least toxic emission.  The shuttles engines use a small amount of hypergolic fuel, relatively speaking, for maneuvering. That only covers the space shuttle and not the numerous rockets used for launching satellites and other items into space.

According to Slate, one of the dangers of rocket propellants it that they emit reactive gases that destroy the ozone, as well as soot and aluminum oxide that add to the problem.  Crosslink commented that the build up of black soot in the stratosphere will last for years so multiple launches could accumulate more soot that absorbs sunlight.  Most man made pollutants do not reach the levels that rocket exhaust does which creates unique problems.

Even though the amount of propellant burned by rockets—and so, too, their carbon dioxide emissions—is small compared to the fuel burned each year by the aviation industry, the accumulation of stratospheric soot could represent a net additional heating, or radiative forcing, on the atmosphere comparable to all of aviation.

Now start adding in more launches coming from more countries like China and you begin to see the problem.  The fuels used for the ever increasing launches of GPS, defense, spy, and climate satellites is simply adding more stuff into parts of our atmosphere we previously had been unable to reach.  Add to the those launches what some hope will be a burgeoning space tourist industry and we simply compound our climate change issues.

Unfortunately, liquid hydrogen is unable to be the only fuel used to lift rockets into the air thus NASA’s need to find other fuels that won’t produce the dangerous byproducts of the fuels used today.

Photo from NASA.

The Commission issued the new standards as a way to save 8,000 gigawatt hours of electricity.  That’s the amount of energy wasted each year by inefficient battery chargers. The monetary savings would be $306 million that California tax payers could keep in their pockets.  According to Energy Star, if everyone in America were to use energy efficient battery chargers, it would “prevent the release of more than one million tons of greenhouse gas emissions – equivalent to the emissions of 150,000 cars.” Another by product of new battery charger standards is that it reduces the need to build more power plants.

Battery charger systems use energy in three modes: (1) energy used to actually charge batteries (charge mode); (2) energy consumed by the battery charger when the battery has been removed or disconnected (no-battery mode); and (3) energy consumed after the battery has been fully charged (battery-maintenance mode).

The proposed standards will eliminate wasted energy by setting a limit on the total electricity consumed by a battery charger in all three modes. Many consumer electronics manufacturers produce chargers that already meet the standards.

Energy efficient charging technology has been around for a while. In March of 2010, AT&T introduced the ZERO charger.  The ZERO charger turned off once the cell phone was charged saving electricity and money for the consumer. Apple has a battery charger that has one of the lowest vampire draws on the market.  According to the company the charger which charges six rechargeable AA batteries only uses 30 mW in standby mode while other battery chargers will use 315 mW.

So California’s new standards aren’t requiring manufacturers to come up with some new technology.  The standards require that charger manufacturers incorporate known technology into the chargers that are being made. The U.S. Department of Energy is also working on energy efficiency standards for battery chargers. 

California has frequently been a forerunner in the areas of energy efficiency and reduced pollution.  Once the makers of battery chargers start manufacturing chargers that meet California standards, the rest of us will benefit as well.  After all, if they have to make more efficient battery chargers for California, might as well make them for the rest of the country.

With all of the gadgets that we have these days that require battery chargers, having more energy efficient ones can only help us all.

The eMO is part of Vehicles Programs and Development (VPD) at Tata.  It stands for electric MObility study or eMO.  The vehicle was developed as part of an engineering study that has resulted in the filing of 15 patents.  It was designed to be green in its function and manufacturing as well as affordable.  Something not many electric vehicle manufacturers have been able to accomplish (think Tesla, Fisker, and Chevrolet).

The company claims that this car could be sold for the US price of $20,000.  As designed, the car would be able of reaching speeds up to 65 mph and would have a 100 mile range per charge.  It is considered a “New Urban” vehicle. The sparse interior also points it towards city driving since there isn’t much in the way of entertainment or long distance comfort.

The car resembles a small hatchback like the Smart Car but without the hatchback. Instead of a rear cargo area reached through a rear hatch, the cargo area is actually the backseat with the seats folded up and accessed through suicide style rear doors.  The car will seat four adults.  The back two adults are right inside the rear window and back bumper.  A rear fender bender could do a lot of damage to rear passengers because there is absolutely nothing behind them but the back of the car.

The company also did its best to develop a green manufacturing process for the car to keep the entire life of the car as green as possible.

“We wanted to reduce the carbon footprint of manufacturing, assembly and all associated processes, so a Small Assembly Footprint methodology drove our manufacturing solution,” said Fisher. “This eliminates the traditional body shop and paint process and uses as many ‘green’ product materials and processes as possible.”

The car might go into production one day if another automaker wants to explore that option with Tata.  We’ll see if anyone else is interested after Detroit, but if Tata isn’t going to put it into production, I doubt anyone else will.

All pictures from Tata motors.

French engineering company, Ginger Groupe, would like to transform the Eiffel Tower into a “living tree” according to Reuters and Sustainablog.  The company is proposing that the structure be fitted with approximately 600,000 plants hung in hemp bags of soil with an additional installation of  12 tons of tubing for irrigation.  The “installation would remove 87.8 tons of carbon dioxide from the air and is estimated to cost 97 million dollars.”  From afar, the Eiffel Tower would look like it was sprouting green fuzz.

That’s more than a million dollars per ton.  The company proposes to start the installation in the latter half of 2012, but it is still working on getting permission and funding to put their idea into action.  So far, the authorities haven’t jumped at the chance to “symbolize the reconciliation of nature and mankind” by covering one of the best known structures in France in greenery.  The installation would only last through 2014 when it would be dismantled.  It hardly seems worth the time, trouble and controversy that the installation would incur.

Delegates at the latest Climate Summit in Durban, South Africa recently agreed to enter a future agreement to reduce carbon emissions.  Part of that settlement saw the European Union agree to an extension of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.  As such France is still under a legal obligation to continue to lower carbon emissions.

While fitting the Eiffel Tower with 600,000 plants would help meet France’s emission goals, there are better ways of doing so without covering up countries most well-known monument.  Promoting the use of electric vehicles with the installation of charging stations while improving the efficiency of the countries electrical grid would go further towards reducing carbon dioxide emissions over a longer period of time.

The Ginger Group provides environmental engineering and turnkey construction and maintenance solutions for its customers.  So far, the Eiffel Tower doesn’t look as if it will be one of its projects. 

Photo: Eiffel Tower by ana braca under Creative Commons

Talk Vietnam reported that the tree was 32 layers made from 2,500 used cell phones.  The tree stands almost 15 feet high. According to an AP story on Yahoo, Westcom Electronics in My Tho, Vietnam created the cell phone Christmas tree as a way to “raise awareness about hazardous waste and promote environmental responsibility.”  The message is especially important since the Vietnamese discard about 50 million handsets a year creating 400 tons of hazardous waste.

A 2007 study of cell phone waste conducted by University of California-Irvine and reported in PhysOrg, broke down the chemicals from the liquid that leaches into the soil from cell phone waste.  What they found was scary. 

"These data demonstrate that electronics manufacturers who seek to design products exempt from current hazardous waste classifications will need to address not just lead, as the current wave of responses to European and Japanese regulations has shown, but also nickel, antimony and zinc, and, most importantly, copper content."

According to Earth911.com, cell phones and their batteries are composed of a lot different substances that are dangerous especially when concentrated in landfills. 

Cell phone coatings are often made of lead, meaning that if these 500 million cell phones are disposed of in landfills, it will result in 312,000 pounds of lead released. However, possibly the most hazardous component of the cell phone is the battery.

Cell phone batteries were originally composed of nickel and cadmium (Ni-Cd batteries). Cadmium is listed as a human carcinogen that causes lung and liver damage. Alternatives contain potentially explosive lithium or toxic lead.

They also contain mercury, beryllium, arsenic, and antimony.

If the Vietnamese throw away 50 million handsets per year, you know that the European Union, the United States and India throw away many more simply because of the size of their populations.  Concentrated amounts of led, nickel, cadmium, and lithium in landfills means that those substances are leaching into the ground and ground water. 

Turning used cellphones into a Christmas tree is certainly a better choice than tossing them in a landfill, but Christmas doesn’t last year round and something has to happen with the used phones.  Poisoning ourselves by tossing them into landfills is certainly not the way to do it. 

Many people will be receiving new cell phones for Christmas.  That means that come December 26th there will be a lot of potential hazardous trash ready to go out with the Christmas wrapping.  Instead head over to Recycle My Cell Phone and let them get your old phones to certified companies who will refurbish your old phones and give them new life.  Sure beats poisoning the water.

Two years ago, a SAS campaign had volunteers collecting identifiable marine litter and mailing it back to the manufacturer.  They collected the stuff, boxed it, wrapped it and sent it off.  It was called the “Return to Offender” campaign.  The group understood that the manufacturers didn’t actually do the littering themselves, but wanted them to improve (if not actually create) anti-littering messages to their customers.  Old bottles of soda, suntan lotion and food wrappers don’t make for safe beaches.

The plethora of plastics and other litter on our beaches is not only an eyesore, but also a persistent and long-lasting danger to surfers, beach users, recreational water sports enthusiasts, and the wildlife and habitats all around the UK’s coastline.

That danger exists whether it is a beach in the UK, Bahamas, or California.

Facebook is a wonderful venue and this year SAS decided to deliver a message to Mountain Dew UK.  The group had found 55 empty Mountain Dew bottles on the beach after the Boardmasters festival this year.  They creatively constructed a Mountain Dew Christmas tree, photographed it, and posted it on Mountain Dew’s Facebook page along with comments.  SAS supporters continued to post and comment, to get their message across.

If nothing else, SAS members are creative in getting their message out and it is a creativity that can be spread from beaches, to parks, to city streets.  While manufacturers can’t be held responsible for the litter caused by their customers, they can certainly help to create an atmosphere in which their customers want to at the very least clean up their mess and hopefully recycle the trash when possible. 

This Christmas, Hanukah, Kwanzaa and New Years Eve, people will be discarding a ton of trash.  Most of it will make it into trash receptacles and recycling bins.  For the trash that doesn’t make it where it needs to go, think up something creative and make a statement.  After all why leave trash going to waste?

The Chicago Tribune reports that Congress postponed the enforcement of the new light bulb efficiency standards in last nights passage of the omnibus spending bill.  The new efficiency standards still go into effect but the Department of Energy can’t enforcement them for nine months. 

The National Electrical Manufacturers Association, the trade group whose members produce more than 95 percent of the light bulbs sold in the United States, supported the new energy efficient standards. It said its members have invested millions since Congress approved the standards in 2007, preparing to comply with the new rules, which remain in effect even if they will not be enforced.

"The industry is concerned that any delay in federal enforcement … will undermine those investments and also create regulatory uncertainty," said Kyle Pitsor, vice president of government affairs for the trade group.

The standards were approved in the 2007 Energy Independence & Security Act  (EISA) in Title III sections 321 and 322 .  It required light bulb manufacturers to reduce the amount of wattage needed to produce the same amount of light (lumens) produced by a 100 W incandescent bulb.  Manufacturers were required to produce bulbs that used only 72 W to equal the same amount of lumens.  By reducing the amount of energy required to produce the same amount of light, individuals, communities and the nation would see savings.  Energystar.gov describes the law and why it was enacted below.

Under the new law, screw-based light bulbs will use fewer watts for a similar lumen output. The standards are technology neutral, which means any type of bulb can be sold as long as it meets the efficiency requirements. Common household light bulbs that traditionally use between 40 and 100 watts will use at least 27% less energy by 2014. The law applies to the manufacturer date and will begin affecting 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014. California began the transition one year earlier.

The second part of the law requires that most light bulbs be 60-70% more efficient than the standard incandescent today; this will go into effect in 2020. Many compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) and many Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) can meet this requirement today, shaving energy usage compared to standard incandescents by 75%.
Efficiency is measured by the number of lumens per watt a bulb provides. Lumens tell us how bright a light bulb is. Watts tell us how much energy the light bulb uses.

EISA is eliminating unnecessarily wasteful products from the market. There are 4 billion light bulb sockets in the U.S. and more than 3 billion of them still use the standard incandescent technology that hasn’t changed much in 125 years. A standard incandescent is only 10% efficient – the other 90% of the electricity it uses is lost as heat.
Another benefit of using more efficient light bulbs includes reductions of harmful emissions from coal-fired power plants (mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel, acid gases and greenhouse gases1). This helps to protect the health of our citizens, wildlife and environment, and it’s an easy, achievable step toward reducing our carbon footprint.
Additionally, efficient products mean cost savings. The new standards mean U.S. households collectively could save nearly $6 billion in 2015 alone, as estimated by U.S. Department of Energy.

The change in light bulbs should reduce the amount of CO2 emissions the equivalent of the pollution generated by 24 new coal plants.

While some people seem to think that this is the governments way of forcing us to use CFLs that contain harmful mercury, they forget that incandescent bulbs have high levels of lead that are harmful.  Consumers will be able to choose among an assortment of different bulbs from CFLs to LEDs to Halogen.  Really, light bulbs haven’t been safe since their inception by Thomas Edison in the 1880s, we just haven’t given it much thought.

Congress may have been striking some sort of strange stance for “freedom of choice” but what they have really done is harm American manufacturers without helping much of anyone.