Stay Warm in the Winter & Save Money with Energy Conservation

The winters have been warmer in the US in may areas for November and December than in past years but it still can be brutally cold January through April depending on your area. Let's look at ways to cut down on the heating bills okay?
What areas of your home need additional support from air leaks? Check out your duct, look at the existing insulation and see if you need to add more fiberglass. What are you windows like in terms of protection? Look into additional caulking as well as weather strips.
Do you have curtains around your windows? What do you use for your window coverings? Study whether drapes , mini blinds or other options are working for you or working against you. Air leaks around windows are a comon culprit.
Brainstorm on ways that you can conserve. I'm not someone who likes wearing a down vest inside to save a little money but I will lower the heat when going out for several hours at a time. Do different rooms in your home have their own thermostats?
How old is your water heater? Consider replacing it with a newer model that is a higher efficiency. This can make a big difference plus save you money.
Do you have rooms in your house that let the sun in during the day? This can be a nice way to warm up some of the rooms if you open the curtains or mini blinds. Use this source of heat as it's free and actually wasted by keeping the curtains closed.
There is a low income energy program that helps those struggling. It is called LIEAP and you can see if your income is in the bracket they specify. This can be a great saver and help you out during the winter.
If after school everyone is doing homework assignments in the living room, den or kitchen then direct the heat in those rooms rather than in the bedroom. This is a great way to save money and live more efficiently.
Do you have an attic? If so, what is your insulation like up there? Is your heat going right out and not in due to insufficient insulation? Since warm air rises, this is an important area to examine.
By using low flow showerheads you can save on the hot water usage in your home. This in turn reduces the bill. Don't forget that if you use a gym you can take your showers there after the workout. You are paying a lot for that gym membership so take advantage of it. But don't be extreme. If you need to shower at home do that!
Think out which of the above strategies you can apply and that way you will be able to save money and spend it on things you enjoy. It may take a little discipline but it's well worth it.

Are we really using our energy efficiently?

In recent years, we’ve seen a push to improve how efficiently we use our energy. But, is this proliferation of energy saving programs and incentives really helping to alleviate the energy crisis we’re facing. If it is, is it enough? Is buying energy saving lights and appliances really going help us decrease the number of generating facilities we require to provide us with the energy we need now and in the future? Should we be confident that our politicians really understand how to fix our current and future energy situation?

I suppose we could take the position that every little bit helps. I can’t deny that no matter how much or how little we save, it is better than doing nothing! But we have to question if the organizations and authorities providing these incentives are taking the best approach to solving our energy problems.

How is it that we can expect someone without experience or understanding in technical arena of electricity to make competent decisions about the future of energy in North America? This is where the root of our problem begins. Hopefully someone, somewhere with the ability to influence policy will stumble across this article and begin to think about the effectiveness of our current position towards reducing energy demand.

In power distribution there are two key terms used to measure our demand for energy. The first is KVA (kilovolt-amperes), which is used to express the total amount of power being generated and provided to the consumer. The second is KW (kilowatts), which is used to express the amount of power the consumer converts in to work. The ratio between these two terms is known as Power Factor and is directly related to the amount of KVAR or reactive power in the electrical system. This Reactive power (KVAR) produces no work and is only used to provide the magnetic field used to power many types of equipment. Since it produces no work, it can be considered as wasted energy. As the difference between the energy we are given and the energy we are using for something useful becomes larger, we increase the amount of wasted energy.

This is where the term efficiency comes in. If efficiency is defined by the utilization of a commodity in the best possible manner while providing the least amount of waste, then we need to consider bringing these two values (KVA and KW closer together). A simple decrease in productive energy (KW) does not necessarily improve the efficiency of the electrical system.

Consider the following:

A facility requires 800KW of productive power to operate. In order to get this productive power the generator is required to provide 1000KVA of total power. This means that the facility is only 80% efficient, or we can say it has a power factor of 80%.

Out of this 1000KVA of total power, 20% is being wasted by producing no work at all. If we improve the level of efficiency (power factor) to 95%, the generator is only required to provide 842KVA of total power to get the same amount of productive work (KW). The result of this is an additional 158KW of potential power to distribute elsewhere.

It is the understanding of this very concept that we need to understand in order to improve our energy situation and to answer our question about the effectiveness of these programs. Power Factor will provide us with a real measure of how efficiently we are using our energy right now and will allow us to compare how well these incentives are working to improve our efficiency.

Although brief and only meant as an introduction, I sincerely hope that this article will bring new light to how we view and manage this serious energy problem we face not only for today, but for our future.

Article Source: http://www.bestglobalwarmingarticles.com

Power Factor and the Environment

Power Factor Correction has been commonly used in North American industry for some time and recently has started to become popular in the residential sector as well. The real question is how can improving power factor benefit our environment? To start, I guess we need a better understanding of what power factor is. Power factor is simply a measure of how efficiently we use our electricity. It is the difference in how much the utility is supplying us (or demand) versus how much we actually use to perform work (real power). Power factor is commonly displayed as a percentage or a decimal between 0 and 1. Ideally, a power factor of 1.0 or 100% would ensure that we waste no power. Realistically this cannot be achieved, but any increase is a positive one.Poor power factor is created by inductive loads, which simply put create a current in the opposing direction. This opposing current renders portions of the energy being sent to you unusable for productive power. This unused energy must be dissipated somehow and results in the form of heat. The use of capacitors help to compensate for this inductance (or opposing current) making more of the energy usable.
So how does this affect our environment? Well, whether we're using this energy productively or not, the utilities are still required to send it to us. Improving power factor reduces the amount of wasted energy and therefore allows us to reduce the amount of energy we need to generate. If the generation of energy is cause for about 75% of green house gas emissions, reducing the total energy demand of a region by 15% would result in a reduction of emissions by about 10% overall.
If that's not an environmental impact, I don't know what is!

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises. Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Source : www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Global Warming

On Feb. 2, 2007, the United Nations scientific panel studying climate change declared that the evidence of a warming trend is "unequivocal," and that human activity has "very likely" been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years. The last report by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 2001, had found that humanity had "likely" played a role.

The addition of that single word "very" did more than reflect mounting scientific evidence that the release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests has played a central role in raising the average surface temperature of the earth by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1900. It also added new momentum to a debate that now seems centered less over whether humans are warming the planet, but instead over what to do about it. In recent months, business groups have banded together to make unprecedented calls for federal regulation of greenhouse gases. The subject had a red-carpet moment when former Vice President Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," was awarded an Oscar; and the Supreme Court made its first global warming-related decision, ruling 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency had not justified its position that it was not authorized to regulate carbon dioxide.

Read More...

The greenhouse effect has been part of the earth's workings since its earliest days. Gases like carbon dioxide and methane allow sunlight to reach the earth, but prevent some of the resulting heat from radiating back out into space. Without the greenhouse effect, the planet would never have warmed enough to allow life to form. But as ever larger amounts of carbon dioxide have been released along with the development of industrial economies, the atmosphere has grown warmer at an accelerating rate: Since 1970, temperatures have gone up at nearly three times the average for the 20th century.

The latest report from the climate panel predicted that the global climate is likely to rise between 3.5 and 8 degrees Fahrenheit if the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere reaches twice the level of 1750. By 2100, sea levels are likely to rise between 7 to 23 inches, it said, and the changes now underway will continue for centuries to come.

Model estimates of CO₂ emissions from soil in response to global warming

D. S. Jenkinson^*, D. E. Adams & A. Wild

Department of Soil Science, University of Reading, Reading RG1 5AQ, UK ^* Also at Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden AL5 2JQ, UK

ONE effect of global warming will be to accelerate the decomposition of soil organic matter, thereby releasing CO₂ to the atmosphere, which will further enhance the warming trend^1–7. Such a feedback mechanism could be quantitatively important, because CO₂ is thought to be responsible for 55% of the increase in radiative forcing arising from anthropogenic emissions of gases to the atmosphere⁸, and there is about twice as much carbon in the top metre of soil as in the atmosphere⁹. Here we use the Rothamsted model for the turnover of organic matter in soil³ to calculate the amount of CO₂ that would be released from the world stock of soil organic matter if temperatures increase as predicted, the annual return of plant debris to the soil being held constant. If world temperatures rise by 0.03 °C yr^-1 (the increase considered as most likely by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change⁸), we estimate that the additional release of CO₂ from soil organic matter over the next 60 years will be 61 10¹⁵ gC. This is 19% of the CO₂ that will be released by combustion of fossil fuel during the next 60 years if present use of fuel continues unabated.

Global Warming Heats Up

The photograph taken in 1928, above, shows how the Upsala Glacier, part of the South American Andes in Argentina, used to look. The ice on the Upsala Glacier today, shown in 2004 below, is retreating at least 180 ft. per year

No one can say exactly what it looks like when a planet takes ill, but it probably looks a lot like Earth. Never mind what you've heard about global warming as a slow-motion emergency that would take decades to play out. Suddenly and unexpectedly, the crisis is upon us.

It certainly looked that way last week as the atmospheric bomb that was Cyclone Larry--a Category 4 storm with wind bursts that reached 125 m.p.h.--exploded through northeastern Australia. It certainly looked that way last year as curtains of fire and dust turned the skies of Indonesia orange, thanks to drought-fueled blazes sweeping the island nation. It certainly looks that way as sections of ice the size of small states calve from the disintegrating Arctic and Antarctic. And it certainly looks that way as the sodden wreckage of New Orleans continues to molder, while the waters of the Atlantic gather themselves for a new hurricane season just two months away. Disasters have always been with us and surely always will be. But when they hit this hard and come this fast--when the emergency becomes commonplace--something has gone grievously wrong. That something is global warming.

The image of Earth as organism--famously dubbed Gaia by environmentalist James Lovelock-- has probably been overworked, but that's not to say the planet can't behave like a living thing, and these days, it's a living thing fighting a fever. From heat waves to storms to floods to fires to massive glacial melts, the global climate seems to be crashing around us. Scientists have been calling this shot for decades. This is precisely what they have been warning would happen if we continued pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, trapping the heat that flows in from the sun and raising global temperatures.

Environmentalists and lawmakers spent years shouting at one another about whether the grim forecasts were true, but in the past five years or so, the serious debate has quietly ended. Global warming, even most skeptics have concluded, is the real deal, and human activity has been causing it. If there was any consolation, it was that the glacial pace of nature would give us decades or even centuries to sort out the problem.

But glaciers, it turns out, can move with surprising speed, and so can nature. What few people reckoned on was that global climate systems are booby-trapped with tipping points and feedback loops, thresholds past which the slow creep of environmental decay gives way to sudden and self-perpetuating collapse. Pump enough CO2 into the sky, and that last part per million of greenhouse gas behaves like the 212th degree Fahrenheit that turns a pot of hot water into a plume of billowing steam. Melt enough Greenland ice, and you reach the point at which you're not simply dripping meltwater into the sea but dumping whole glaciers. By one recent measure, several Greenland ice sheets have doubled their rate of slide, and just last week the journal Science published a study suggesting that by the end of the century, the world could be locked in to an eventual rise in sea levels of as much as 20 ft. Nature, it seems, has finally got a bellyful of us.

Reference:

1. Schleser, G. H. Z. Naturf. A37, 287−219 (1981).

2. Kohlmaier, H., Janacek, A. & Kindermann, J. in Soils and the Greenhouse Effect (ed. Bouwman, A. F.) 415−422 (Wiley, Chichester, 1990).