Select a Category below    Environment - Climate Change    Environment - Environment    Lifestyle - Farming and Gardening    Lifestyle - Green Goods and Products    Politics - News and Action Environment - Climate Change Carbon Sequestration Carbon Sequestration Introduction: Fossil fuels will remain the mainstay of energy production well into the 21st century. Availability of these fuels to provide clean, affordable energy is essential for the prosperity and security of the United States. However, increased concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) due to carbon emissions are expected unless energy systems reduce the carbon emissions to the atmosphere. Global Sequestration Capacity (see diagram on site link below) To stabilize and ultimately reduce concentrations of this greenhouse gas, it will be necessary to employ carbon sequestration - carbon capture, separation and storage or reuse. Carbon sequestration, along with reduced carbon content of fuels and improved efficiency of energy production and use, must play major roles if the nation is to enjoy the economic and energy security benefits, which fossil fuels brings to the energy mix. The President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) underscored the importance of carbon sequestration in its report "Federal Energy Research and Development for the Challenges of the Twenty First Century." PCAST recommended increasing the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) R&D for carbon sequestration. The report stated: "A much larger science-based CO2 sequestration program should be developed. The aim should be to provide a science-based assessment of the prospects and costs of CO2 sequestration. This is very high-risk, long-term R&D that will not be undertaken by industry alone without strong incentives or regulations, although industry experience and capabilities will be very useful." The joint Office of Fossil Energy and Office of Science April 1999 draft report Carbon Sequestration: State of the Science subsequently has assessed "...key areas for research and development (R&D) that could lead to an understanding of the potential for future use of carbon sequestration as a major tool for managing carbon emissions." To be successful, the techniques and practices to sequester carbon must meet the following requirements: 1. be effective and cost-competitive, 2. provide stable, long term storage, and 3. be environmentally benign. Using present technology, estimates of sequestration costs are in the range of $100 to $300/ton of carbon emissions avoided. The goal of the program is to reduce the cost of carbon sequestration to $10 or less per net ton of carbon emissions avoided by 2015. Achieving this goal would save the U.S. trillions of dollars. Further, achieving a mid-point stabilization scenario (e.g., 550 parts per million CO2) would not require wholesale introduction of zero emission systems in the near term. This would allow time to develop cost effective technology over the next 10-15 years that could be deployed for new capacity and capital stock replacement capacity. The near term program will examine and identify a spectrum of science-based sequestration approaches that have the greatest potential to yield the cost-effective technologies that are required. For example, a competitive solicitation was issued in FY 1998 and resulted in the selection of 12 innovative novel concepts for the control of atmospheric emissions of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. In May 1999 six of the most promising concepts were selected for further study. Modeling and assessments provide the capabilities to evaluate technology options in a total systems context, considering costs and impacts over the full product cycle. Further, the societal and environmental effects are analyzed to mental effects are analyzed to provide a basis for assessing trade-offs between local environmental impacts and global impacts. In the mid-term, sequestration pilot testing will develop options for direct and indirect sequestration. The direct options involve the capture of CO2 at the power plant before it enters the atmosphere coupled with "value-added" sequestration, such as using CO2 in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operation and in methane production from deep unmineable coal seams. "Indirect" sequestration involves research on means of integrating fossil fuel production and use with terrestrial sequestration and enhanced ocean storage of carbon. In the long term, the technology products will be more revolutionary and rely less on site-specific or application-specific factors to ensure economic viability. The program portfolio covers the entire carbon sequestration "life cycle" of capture, separation, transportation, and storage or reuse, as well as research needs for the two other major energy related greenhouse gases of concern, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxides (N2O). Specifically, the program has six elements: * Cost effective CO2 capture and separation processes. * CO2 sequestration in geological formations including oil and gas reservoirs, unmineable coal seams, and deep saline reservoirs. * Direct injection of CO2 into the deep ocean and stimulation of phytoplankton growth. * Improved full life-cycle carbon uptake of terrestrial ecosystems. * Advanced chemical, biological, and decarbonization concepts. * Models and assessments of cost, risks, and potential of carbon sequestration technologies. See site link for the details and lots of additional information Introduction: Fossil fuels will remain the mainstay of energy production well into the 21st century. Availability of these fuels to provide clean, affordable energy is essential for the prosperity and security of the United States. However, increased concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) due to carbon emissions are expected unless energy systems reduce the carbon emissions to the atmosphere. Global Sequestration Capacity (see diagram on site link below) To stabilize and ultimately reduce concentrations of this greenhouse gas, it will be necessary to employ carbon sequestration - carbon capture, separation and storage or reuse. Carbon sequestration, along with reduced carbon content of fuels and improved efficiency of energy production and use, must play major roles if the nation is to enjoy the economic and energy security benefits, which fossil fuels brings to the energy mix. The President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) underscored the importance of carbon sequestration in its report "Federal Energy Research and Development for the Challenges of the Twenty First Century." PCAST recommended increasing the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) R&D for carbon sequestration. The report stated: "A much larger science-based CO2 sequestration program should be developed. The aim should be to provide a science-based assessment of the prospects and costs of CO2 sequestration. This is very high-risk, long-term R&D that will not be undertaken by industry alone without strong incentives or regulations, although industry experience and capabilities will be very useful." The joint Office of Fossil Energy and Office of Science April 1999 draft report Carbon Sequestration: State of the Science subsequently has assessed "...key areas for research and development (R&D) that could lead to an understanding of the potential for future use of carbon sequestration as a major tool for managing carbon emissions." To be successful, the techniques and practices to sequester carbon must meet the following requirements: 1. be effective and cost-competitive, 2. provide stable, long term storage, and 3. be environmentally benign. Using present technology, estimates of sequestration costs are in the range of $100 to $300/ton of carbon emissions avoided. The goal of the program is to reduce the cost of carbon sequestration to $10 or less per net ton of carbon emissions avoided by 2015. Achieving this goal would save the U.S. trillions of dollars. Further, achieving a mid-point stabilization scenario (e.g., 550 parts per million CO2) would not require wholesale introduction of zero emission systems in the near term. This would allow time to develop cost effective technology over the next 10-15 years that could be deployed for new capacity and capital stock replacement capacity. The near term program will examine and identify a spectrum of science-based sequestration approaches that have the greatest potential to yield the cost-effective technologies that are required. For example, a competitive solicitation was issued in FY 1998 and resulted in the selection of 12 innovative novel concepts for the control of atmospheric emissions of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. In May 1999 six of the most promising concepts were selected for further study. Modeling and assessments provide the capabilities to evaluate technology options in a total systems context, considering costs and impacts over the full product cycle. Further, the societal and environmental effects are analyzed to mental effects are analyzed to provide a basis for assessing trade-offs between local environmental impacts and global impacts. In the mid-term, sequestration pilot testing will develop options for direct and indirect sequestration. The direct options involve the capture of CO2 at the power plant before it enters the atmosphere coupled with "value-added" sequestration, such as using CO2 in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operation and in methane production from deep unmineable coal seams. "Indirect" sequestration involves research on means of integrating fossil fuel production and use with terrestrial sequestration and enhanced ocean storage of carbon. In the long term, the technology products will be more revolutionary and rely less on site-specific or application-specific factors to ensure economic viability. The program portfolio covers the entire carbon sequestration "life cycle" of capture, separation, transportation, and storage or reuse, as well as research needs for the two other major energy related greenhouse gases of concern, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxides (N2O). Specifically, the program has six elements: * Cost effective CO2 capture and separation processes. * CO2 sequestration in geological formations including oil and gas reservoirs, unmineable coal seams, and deep saline reservoirs. * Direct injection of CO2 into the deep ocean and stimulation of phytoplankton growth. * Improved full life-cycle carbon uptake of terrestrial ecosystems. * Advanced chemical, biological, and decarbonization concepts. * Models and assessments of cost, risks, and potential of carbon sequestration technologies. See site link for the details and lots of additional information More Info: http://www.fe.doe.gov/coal_power/sequestration/index.shtml 10 MYTHS about Global Warming & what you can do about it! 10 MYTHS about Global Warming Don't believe these commonly heard statements: *   It isn't really happening  (documented science overwhelmingly shows temperatures   rising rapidly) *   It's natural   (temperature increases, especially since the 1970's, are far above natural variations) *   Any effects well be very gradual  (not only are severe storms getting stronger, but climate history shows sharp climate changes can occur  abruptly, in only a few years) *   It does not affect the U.S.  (the U.S. is experiencing rising sea levels, more severe storms and droughts, die-off of forests, altered animal migrations, and loss of glaciers such as those in Glacier National Park) *   It will be good for us   (some areas may become more pleasantly warm, but the cost of negative effects will far outweigh any benefits; disease and heat deaths are increasing) *   Agriculture will benefit   (CO2 may make some crops grow faster, but also will accelerate weeds, pests and droughts; crops may not grow well  where they once did as climate zones shift.) *   It's being handled by our government   (The current U.S. Administration advocates studying, not dealing with, global warming;  its energy policy completely based on burning more coal &  oil.  Most state and local governments are unprepared for major changes) *    It's not a big deal compared to national security   (Global warming is actually the most serious threat to the widest range of human  concerns.  Our national and world security is directly threatened by negative climate effects on weather, water supply, disease, agriculture, marine resources, and health) *   Technology will solve the problem for us   (Massive "fixes" like burying greenhouse gases are very unlikely, but many smaller changes can make a difference AND are available now) *    There's nothing to be done anyway   (Everyone can make a difference today -- SEE BELOW) 15  Very Important Things to Do about Global Warming...from the individual to the national 1. Learn about it -- start with this website and see the References 2. Sell the SUV and choose cleaner, more efficient vehicles 3. Use efficient appliances, replace light bulbs, insulate 4. Buy renewable energy, like wind and solar 5. Organize the neighborhood and town for energy efficiency 6. Use your vote and influence as a citizen to elect responsive leaders 7. Encourage efficient transportation in & between communities 8. Plant trees, expand open spaces 9. Reduce sprawl and the paving of the landscape 10. Build for efficiency and solar power 11. Support sustainable farming and forestry 12. Reduce global deforestation 13. Develop an efficient energy policy, moving away from fossil fuels 14. Export new energy technology that uses renewable energy sources 15. ....and Start doing these things today What can we do? Each of can play a role in dealing with and slowing climate change. Each of us must. Right now, the best source for practical actions that can be adopted by individuals, groups, cities, businesses, and governments is the book Stormy Weather by Guy Dauncy and Patrick Mazza, published last year by New Society Publishers. The authors have a website which lists their recommendations, plus a great amount of climate information, at: http://www.earthfuture.com/stormyweather/ How much is a ton of CO2? The density of dry ice is 1.56 (water = 1). The weight of a cubic foot of water is 62.5 pounds (2.835Kgs). A cubic foot of dry ice weighs 1.56 x 62.5 = 97.5 lbs. (44.226 Kgs). The number of cubic feet in a ton of dry ice is 2,000 divided by 97.5 = 20.5 cubic feet (0.58 cu.m), about a 4 x 5 x 1 ft. block. That is what a ton of frozen carbon dioxide looks,like. Of course, it is not frozen when it comes out of our exhaust pipes. The expansion ratio of frozen carbon dioxide to its gaseous state is 845. Thus, a ton of carbon dioxide gas is 845 x 20.5 = 17,323.5 cu. ft (490.55 cu.m), about a 46 x 46 x 8 foot space. That is the equivlanet of the first floor of a 2,100 sq. ft. home in the suburbs, or the inside of 962, 18 cu. ft. refrigerators, or the passenger compartments of 195 Toyota Priuses, or... Excerpted from Letters to the Editor in Home Power June/July 2003. More Info: http://www.homepower.com Portland Cement Accounts for 23% of Man Made CO2 According to Dr Robert McCaffrey in an article downloadable from the Global Cement and Lime Magazine Web Site (as of 27th May 2003) at: http://www.propubs.com/climate/ the total global production of cement is derived from publications by Cembureau and from the Global Cement Report. The total depends on whether production from China’s shaft kilns are included: this cement is included in the total here, since shaft kilns not only still produce CO2 , but also burn their fuel less efficiently than rotary kilns. The figure of 1t of CO2 produced per tonne of OPC cement manufactured is approximate: around 970kg of CO2 is produced per tonne of normal OPC produced (see Marchal 2001). The figure for total man-made CO2 production is taken from the IGPCC 2001 report (see bibliography). This calculation to find the cement industry’s yearly current contribution to global man-made CO2 emissions is very simple and is as follows: 1.5Bt CO2 (cement industry)/6.5Bt CO2 (total man-made CO2 ) = 23%. According to the IGPCC, CO2 is responsible for around 50% of man-made global warming, and the cement industry therefore seems to be responsible for around 10% of the total global warming effect. More Info: http://www.propubs.com/climate/ CLIMATE NUMBERS THAT COUNT Stormy Weather - Climate Numbers That Count Years since the Earth's ozone layer was formed: 2,000 million Number of species that can live outside the oceans in a world without an ozone layer: 0 Years since we started destroying the ozone layer: 66 Years since we decided to stop destroying the ozone layer: 14 Years in which the extent of ozone depletion has decreased: 0 Years since fossil fuels were deposited on Earth: 60 million Total carbon emissions per year from human activities: 8 billion tonnes % of the world's carbon emissions that result from burning fossil fuels: 77.5% % of the world's carbon emissions that result from forest and soil loss: 22.5% Years since we started consuming coal: 600 Tonnes of coal consumed in 1998: 5 billion % of the world's carbon emissions that result from burning coal: 27.5% Years since we started consuming oil: 140 World's total supply of oil: 2000 - 2800 billion barrels Quantity of oil consumed up to 2000: 900 billion barrels Quantity of oil consumed in 2000: 28 million barrels Quantity of oil discovered in 2000: 6 million barrels Number of days' US oil supply in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: 152 % of the world's carbon emissions that result from burning oil: 33.3% Years since we started consuming natural gas: 110 World's proven reserves of natural gas: 5,146 trillion cubic feet Current rate of consumption of natural gas: 83 trillion cubic feet a year Forecast consumption of natural gas for 2020: 167 trillion cubic feet a year % of new US electricity planned to come from natural gas: 96% % of the world's carbon emissions that result from burning gas: 16.3% Main ingredient in natural gas: methane Factor by which methane is a more potential greenhouse gas than CO2 over 100 years: 23 Factor by which methane is a more potential greenhouse gas than CO2 over 20 years: 62 Years since we started destroying our planet's forests: 3,000 % of world's carbon emissions that result from forest loss: 22.5% Years needed before a clearcut Douglas fir oldgrowth forest recovers its lost carbon: 150 Quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution: 288 parts per million Quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere in 2000: 370 parts per million Years since Earth's CO2 level was last this high: 20 million Annual increase of CO2 in the atmosphere: 1.5 parts per million Average nighttime temperature on Mars, with almost no greenhouse effect: minus 189° F Average temperature on Venus, with high greenhouse effect: 860° F Average temperature on Earth, with moderate greenhouse effect: 59° F % of the enhanced greenhouse effect caused by CO2: 52.5% % of the enhanced greenhouse effect caused by methane: 17.3% % of the enhanced greenhouse effect caused by ozone: 12.5% % of the enhanced greenhouse effect caused by industrial greenhouse gases: 12.2% % of the enhanced greenhouse effect caused by nitrous oxide: 5.4% Number of ice ages in last 420,000 years: 4 Average length of each ice age: 90,000 years Average length of each inter-glacial period: 10,000 years Time since end of last ice age: 11,500 years Global temperature increase, 1750-1990: 1.25° F Rate of temperature increase since 1990: 0.72° F IPCC's estimate of global temperature increase by 2100: 2.5° F - 10.4° F Temperature increase in the Arctic since 1970: 4° F Average depth of Arctic sea-ice, pre 1960: 3 meters Loss of sea-ice depth to melting since 1970: 1.2 metres Depth of sea-ice in 2040, if melting continues: 0 meters Number of glaciers in Glacier National Park, 1850: 150 Number of glaciers in Glacier National Park, 2000: 50 Average reduction in greenhouse gases (GHGs) below 1990 levels required by Kyoto: 5.2% % reduction needed by USA to meet Kyoto, by 2010: 27% % reduction needed by Canada to meet Kyoto, by 2010: 44% Reduction in GHGs that IPCC scientists say is needed to avoid ecological catastrophe: 60-70% Primary energy consumed by the world in 1998: 382 quadrillion Btus (quads) % of primary energy provided by fossil fuels in 1998: 85% Potential for gains through energy efficiency today: 50% Potential for gains through energy efficiency and lifestyle changes by 2025: 75% Primary energy needed for sustainable world in 2025: 500 quads Renewable energy needed by 2025, if 80% is renewable: 400 quads Land needed to generate 400 quads if all was from solar energy: 330,000 square miles % of Earth's total land area that this represents: 0.57% % of North African and Middle East deserts that this represents: 5% Global wind energy potential: 341 quads Global geothermal energy potential: 468 quads Global tidal energy potential: 72 quads Global biomass energy potential: 254 quads Price of solar energy in 1970s: $100 per watt Price of solar energy in 2001: $5 per watt Potential price of solar energy, with 500 MW/year mass production: $1.25 per watt Year when Danish neighbours built first modern wind turbine: 1978 % of Denmark's wind generated by wind in 2001: 15% Number of jobs in Danish wind energy sector: 17,000 % of global wind turbines exported that are Danish: 55% Length of coal-train needed to supply Denmark's wind energy equivalent from coal: 366 miles Quantity of wind energy generated in Germany in 2000: 6,100 MW Quantity of wind energy generated in USA in 2000: 2,500 MW Quantity of wind energy generated in Canada in 2000: 137 MW Europe's goal for wind energy in 2010: 60,000 MW US electrical generation capacity in 1998: 3,600 TWh North Dakota's wind energy potential: 1,200 TWh Texas' wind energy potential: 1,190 TWh Kansas' wind energy potential: 1,070 TWh South Dakota's wind energy potential: 1,033 TWh Lower 48 states' wind energy potential: 10,871 TWh Assumed carbon tax in WEFA study that predicts economic doom from Kyoto: $265 per ton Cost of carbon displacement via solar electrification project in Sri Lanka: $18 per ton Cost of carbon displacement via planting trees with American Forests: $11 per ton Cost of carbon displacement via methane recovery from landfill: $2 per ton Value of carbon displacement via energy efficiency and innovation: $4 - $7 per ton Value of reduced acid rain and smog from closing coal-fired plants: $12 - $18 per ton Predicted cost of weather-related disasters to world by 2050: $300 billion/year Amount spent by oil and gas companies in 2000 Presidential campaign: $30 million % given to Democrats: 20% % given to Republicans: 78% Amount spent by transportation companies in 2000 Presidential campaign: $51 million % given to Democrats: 27% % given to Republicans: 72% Tonnes of CO2 produced by 1 person flying New York to Paris: 3.8 Tonnes of CO2 produced by 1 person flying Winnipeg to Miami: 2.2 Conversion factor, carbon to CO2: multiply by 3.667 Pounds of CO2 produced by burning 1 gallon of gasoline: 20 Pounds of CO2 per mile released if car does 20 mpg: 1 Tons of CO2 released by driving 15,000 miles in Chevrolet Suburban SUV: 12.9 Tons of CO2 released by driving 15,000 miles in Honda Insight: 3.1 Years since US Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency Standards were raised: 26 Average yearly cost of using inefficient household appliances (8 cents/kWh): $900 Average yearly cost of using efficient household appliances (8 cents/kWh): $460 Tons of CO2 produced by using inefficient household appliances (1.6lbs carbon per kWh): 9 Tons of CO2 produced by using efficient household appliances (1.6lbs carbon per kWh): 4.6 Annual return on investment from buying efficient lamps and fixtures: 41% Annual return on investment from buying 30 year bonds: 4.2% Tonnes of methane released annually from human activities: 375 million % of methane that comes from cows and pigs: 25% Pounds of methane released by production of 1 lb. of beef: 0.5 Pounds of carbon equivalent (over 20 years) released by production of 1 lb. of beef: 31 Quantity of beef eaten annually per person in the USA: 260 lbs Pounds of carbon equivalent (over 20 years) released by production of 260 lbs of beef: 8,000 Quantity of beef eaten annually per person in Canada: 210 lbs Pounds of carbon equivalent (over 20 years) released by production of 210 lbs of beef: 6,510 Tons of CO2 produced in manufacturing a car: 5.25 Pounds of CO2 produced in manufacturing a daily paper: 0.72 Pounds of CO2 saved by recycling 1 bottle: 1 Pounds of CO2 saved by recycling 1 paper: 0.25 Money spent by America's schools each year on energy: $6 billion Amount that could be saved by more efficient designs and methods: $1.5 billion Number of trees to be planted in Los Angeles' Cool Schools program: 8,000 Energy saved by using 'daylighting' in North Carolina schools: 22% - 64% Improvement in school grades as result of daylighting: 5% - 21% Energy savings from city building retrofits in Montgomery County, Maryland: 30-40% Savings per year from reducing emissions in City of Toronto: $12 million CAN Tons of CO2 saved if all buildings in USA & Canada were retrofitted: 550 million Number of trees planted from 1990 - 2000 by Sacramento Shade: 500,000 Tons of CO2 removed annually by Sacramento's urban forest: 238,000 Number of audited energy efficiency projects completed by Dow Chemicals in the 1980s: 575 Average return on investment of each project: 204% Annual savings to Dow's shareholders, as a result of the investments: $110 million Energy-use reduction achieved by Boeing by installing more efficient lighting: 90% Return on investment from the new lighting: 53% Savings to IBM through greenhouse gas reduction projects over 10 years: $525 million CO2 eliminated through these projects: 6 million tons Energy reduction achieved when Interface shifted to 100% recyclable, returnable carpeting: 90% Fuel efficiency increase planned for next generation of FedEx delivery trucks: 50% % of U.S. greenhouse gases produced from energy used in buildings: 35% Energy that could be saved by upgrading existing buildings: 30% - 50% Energy that could be saved by efficient new buildings: 70% - 90% % of buildings that are considered efficient: 2% Energy saved by new ING Bank in Amsterdam, Holland's 2nd largest bank: 90% Additional cost of energy-saving features: $700,000 Annual saving from new energy-efficient features: $2.9 million Greenhouse gases released in 1998 by US landfills, in carbon equivalents : 65 million tons Number of landfills in the USA: 6,000 Number that are capturing their methane gas to convert to energy: 270 % of lumber cut in the U.S. that is used for wooden pallets: 11% Number of pallets in the US: 1.5 billion Number of new pallets made every year: 400 million Number of houses that could be framed each year from discarded pallets: 300,000 Annual cost to New York businesses to dispose of pallets: $130 million Daily subsidy given by the US government to the oil, coal and gas industry: $50 million Estimated daily worldwide subsidy given to fossil fuel industry: $643 - $959 million IPCC estimation of reduction in CO2 emissions if subsidies were removed: 4% - 18% Money raised in 1997 by the UK charity Comic Relief for famine in Africa: $38 million Days of debt service payments that this represents for Africa: 1.3 Money per person per year that Uganda spends on debt relief: $17 Money per person per year that Uganda spends on health care: $3 Face value of debt owed by the world's 52 poorest nations: $376 billion Actual cost to cancel this debt: $71 billion Annual cost per person to OECD citizens to cancel this debt over 20 years: $4 Biggest need facing developing nations as they strive to replace fossil fuels: money From the book entitled: Stormy Weather - 101 Solutions to Climate Change by Guy Dauncy and Patrick Mazza More Info: http://www.earthfuture.com/stormyweather/ Environment - Environment ENERGY MATTERS *POWER TO BURN Hours for Earth to receive the same energy from the sun as humans consume in a year: 1 * Percent of Canada’s energy production originating from fossil fuels: 83 * Percent of Canadian households heated mainly by natural gas or oil: 62.6 * Canada’s rank in world production of natural gas: third * Barrels of crude oil produced each day in Canada: 2.22 million, or 6,300 oil tanker trucks * Tonnes of coal produced in 2001: 70 million, or 1.6 million rail cars * Percent of Canada’s primary energy use from renewable energy sources in 1998: 17 * Percent of Canadian households using wood as the primary source of heating: 4.4 * Length of time the energy produced from hydro power in Canada in 1998 would light one 40-watt bulb: 1 billion years * Length of time the energy produced from wind power in Canada in 1998 would light one 40-watt bulb: 1 million years * Length of time the energy produced from solar power in Canada in 1998 would light one 40-watt bulb: 170,000 years *PIPELINES AND PYLONS * Length of pipeline in Canada: 580,000 kilometres * Percent of Canada’s total energy supply transported by pipelines: 66 * Percent of Canadian-produced crude oil and natural gas transported by pipelines: 95 * Value of natural gas, oil and oil-related products delivered via pipeline in 2001: $65 billion * Percent of Canada’s crude oil requirements imported then transported through pipelines: 33 * Velocity at which natural gas travels through pipelines: 20 kilometres per hour * Total pipeline assets of Canadian Energy Pipeline Association member companies in 2001: $17 billion * Property taxes paid by Canadian Energy Pipeline Association in 2001: $320 million * Kilometres of electricity transmission lines in Canada: 160,000 * Percent contribution of the Canadian electric power industry to Canada’s gross domestic product in 1997: 2.9 * Percent of the world’s electricity production generated in Canada in 1997: 4.1 * Global ranking of Canada’s per capita electricity consumption in 1995: third *SCRAP METAMORPHOSIS * Energy saved by producing new steel from scrap versus raw material: one-third * Energy saved by producing glass from recycled crushed glass versus raw material: one-third * Energy saved by producing new plastic from recycled material versus raw material: one-third * Fossil-fuel energy saved for each aluminum beverage can recycled: enough to run a television for 3 hours * Carbon dioxide emissions spared for every tonne of aluminum diverted from a landfill by recycling: 2 tonnes * Energy saved making recycled aluminum versus making aluminum from bauxite ore: 75 percent * Total shipments of pulp and paper in Canada in 2001: 29.4 million tonnes * Energy equivalent saved for every tonne of recycled paper: 1,440 litres of oil * Reduction in air pollution when paper is made from waste rather than virgin fibre: 73 percent * Reduction in water used when paper is made from waste rather than virgin fibre: 61 percent * Tonnes of wood spared per tonne of paper made from recycled material: 3 More Info: http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/mj03/ecoaudit.asp Lifestyle - Farming and Gardening What Canadians Need to Know About MAD COW DISEASE What Is Mad Cow Disease? Mad Cow disease, or its scientific name Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), is a fatal brain-wasting disease in cattle which was first identified in the United Kingdom (UK) in 1986. The disease has an incubation period lasting 4-7 years, but ultimately is fatal for cattle within weeks of its onset.(1) BSE is one of a number of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs) - a family of diseases in humans and animals which are characterized by sponge-like lesions in the brain. Other examples of TSEs are found in sheep, deer, elk, mink and even the feline species. In deer and elk, TSE is commonly referred to as "Chronic Wasting Disease" and in sheep the disease is known as "scrapie." It is widely believed that cattle in Britain developed BSE as a result of being fed the rendered carcasses of dead sheep that were infected with scrapie. There is a great deal of speculation as to the original cause of Mad Cow disease. According to the widely-held "prion theory", the BSE agent is composed largely, if not entirely, of a self-replicating protein referred to as a "prion." Another theory suggests that the agent is virus-like and possesses nucleic acids which carry information. Strong evidence collected over the past decade supports the prion theory, but the ability of the BSE agent to form multiple strains is more easily explained by a virus-like agent. Epidemiological studies conducted in the UK suggest it is spread through cattle feed prepared from carcasses of other ruminants - any of a group of even-toed, hoofed, cud-chewing mammals, including cattle, deer, and elk. No one knows for sure how the first cow (or cows) got BSE, but we know it spread throughout Britain and eventually the world through the cannibalistic practice of making cattle feed out of the bits of cattle (offal) that are not fed to humans. Like a "chain-letter", offal from a Mad Cow infected many more cattle and offal of those cattle infected many more. According to British customs figures, more than 200,000 tons of potentially contaminated feed were exported around the world.(2) The UK Sunday Times reported that Prosper de Mulder, Britain's largest rendering company, exported potentially contaminated material to Canada.(3,4) In a worldwide alert the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation reported that meat and bone meal from Europe was imported by more than 100 countries since 1986, including Canada.(5) All those countries are at risk, said the report, and added "All countries which have imported cattle or meat and bone meal that originated from Western Europe, during and since the 1980s, can therefore be considered at risk from the disease."(6) As of December 2000 approximately 180,000 cases of Mad Cow disease were confirmed in the UK.(7) Cases of BSE have been confirmed in cattle in Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland, Germany, Spain, Liechtenstein, Italy, Belgium, Greece, Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Finland, Austria, Israel and Japan.(8) In December 2000, the World Health Organisation issued a warning of "Global Exposure to BSE" and urged that "all countries must prohibit the use of ruminant tissues in ruminant feed"; In other words - stop cannibalistic feeding practices. Cattle are herbivores - not cannibals. What Is new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD)? New variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) -- or "Human Mad Cow disease" -- is also a fatal brain-wasting disease. Characterized by dementia and loss of motor control, this hideous disease was first identified in the United Kingdom in 1996. It is widely accepted in the scientific community that the most likely cause of vCJD is from exposure to the BSE agent via "dietary contamination by affected bovine central nervous system tissue", or in more simple terms, from eating infected meat.(9) Originally it was believed that Mad Cow disease could not jump from cattle to humans. The hypothesis of a link between vCJD and Mad Cow disease was first raised because of the association of these two in time and place. Experts quickly observed that the agent responsible for vCJD is consistent with the agent that causes Mad Cow disease in cattle; In other worlds - it was the same disease.(10) Scientific studies have since confirmed that vCJD and BSE are indeed the same disease.(11) vCJD is classified as a Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE) because of characteristic spongy degeneration of the brain. The first person known to develop symptoms of what turned out to be vCJD became ill in 1994. Early in the illness, patients usually experience psychiatric symptoms, which most commonly take the form of depression or, less often, a schizophrenia-like psychosis. Early in the illness, unusual sensory symptoms, including "stickiness" of the skin, are experienced in approximately half of all cases. Neurological degeneration, including unsteadiness, difficulty walking and involuntary movements, occurs as the illness progresses. By the time of death patients are completely immobile and mute. vCJD is often confused with CJD, or "Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease", another brain-wasting human TSE disease which causes sponge-like degeneration of the brain. However, CJD, which afflicts approximately one in a million people worldwide, is caused by a hereditary predisposition. According to Mad Cow disease expert Dr. Steven Dealer, like cattle, thousands - perhaps millions - of people may have been infected before the disease was first identified in 1996.(12) As of June 1st, 2001, there were 104 confirmed cases of vCJD. What worries Dr. Dealer is the alarming increase in new cases being diagnosed. There were 15 people diagnosed with vCJD in 1999 and 42 more diagnosed in 2000.(13) Because no one knows the length of the incubation period, which is currently speculated to be as long as 40 years, it is uncertain how many people will ultimately be infected. Dr. Dealer estimates that as many as 5 million people will contract the fatal disease in the United Kingdom alone.(14) Is Canada Safe From Mad Cow disease? Alberta actually imported a live cow with Mad Cow disease back in 1993. The Canadian government raced to destroy the "Mad" cow - along with more than 400 other cattle from the same herd - but some cattle slipped through the cracks. A report by the European Union's Scientific Committee noted that "eleven imported cattle that were found to be carrying a risk of being infected [with BSE] entered the Canadian food or feed chain".(15) Furthermore, it was reported in the Globe and Mail that CFIA officials were sent "scrambling" to track down 20 cattle imported from Japan, which had recently been diagnosed with its first case of Mad Cow disease. Once again, Ottawa failed to track down all the animals. It was later realized that four of the suspect cattle had already been slaughtered and may have entered the Canadian food supply.(16) In other words, cattle potentially carrying Mad Cow disease have already been processed into feed and fed to Canadian cattle. However, according to Dr. Claude Lavigne, an official from Canada's Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Mad Cow disease is "a European Disease and that's about it."(17) Officials from the Geneva-based World Health Organisation (WHO) disagree. The WHO has concluded that Mad Cow disease is a "global disease" and "no country is immune."(18) In fact, Germany, France, Belgium and Italy had all pronounced they were "free" of Mad Cow disease. Mad Cow disease has now been documented in all those countries.(19) According to Michael Hansen, a Mad Cow expert with the Consumers Union in New York, dozens of countries around the world who imported potentially contaminated animal feed from Europe - including Canada and the US - may already have the fatal disease in their herds and simply aren't aware yet.(20) According to Hansen, governments insist they have erected a "firewall" against Mad Cow disease, but in reality it's "more like a white picket fence."(21) Hansen stated, "I would predict that if they tested enough animals (in Canada) they would find a positive."(22) Last year in Canada, only 900 cattle were tested for Mad Cow disease.(23) That is less than 0.0001 % of Canada's beef cattle herd which numbers 11,000,000.(24) To put this in perspective, European countries were testing thousands of cattle per week in an attempt to detect and eradicate the horrific disease! Maybe Canadian regulators and industry aren't looking because they are afraid of what they might find. According to government sources, the only cattle being checked for Mad Cow disease are those that display neuro-degenerative behavior. This is a problematic scenario because not all cattle carrying the BSE agent exhibit the trademark brain-wasting symptoms.(25) The CFIA contends it is taking every precaution to keep Mad Cow disease out of Canada. The US Food and Drug Administration admitted that only 2700 of 9500 rendering plants inspected were complying with regulations designed to keep Mad Cow disease out.(26) Last year alone Canada imported 15.5 million kilograms of meat byproducts from the US. Canada also imported 125,000 kilograms of British meat and bone meal in the 1990s after it had been identified as a likely cause of Mad Cow disease.(27,28) Furthermore, Statistics Canada documentation shows that between 1990-2000 Canada continued to import millions of kilograms of potentially contaminated blood meal, meat scraps and waste meat from the United Kingdom and European countries. Shockingly, over 2.8 million kilograms of this potentially contaminated material was imported after 1996 - after it was established that humans could contract vCJD from eating infected meat.(29) This contradicts claims by Agriculture Minister Lyle Vanclief, who categorically denied that Canada ever imported bone meal from countries known to have Mad Cow disease. "Never," said Vanclief outside the Commons, "Canada has not imported meat and bone meal from the European Union."(30,31) Is Minister Vanclief lying or is he being misled by his advisors? Despite the reality that Mad Cow disease is spreading around the world, federal regulators have not taken preventative measures to protect Canada. The willful blindness that characterized Health Canada's approach to the handling of the hazard of blood contamination in the past is clearly being repeated today.(32) Health Canada officials have responded to the Mad Cow threat by saying they have set up a committee to "review" the situation - and added: "We're not worried."(33) The United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organisation states that "all countries which have imported cattle or meat and bone meal from Western Europe, especially the UK, during and since the 1980s, can be considered at risk from the disease."(34) Canada has imported millions of kilograms of such products.(35) When Mad Cow disease started to sweep across Britain, government officials went to extremes to hide it from the public. For six months, there was an embargo on publishing information about Mad Cow disease. When information started to leak out, the British government told the public - "trust us" - and went to great lengths to convey the false impression that Mad Cow disease was not transmissible to humans and thus posed no threat.(36) Eventually, the concealment of information stopped and the truth came out. Mad Cow disease was killing people. How many lives would be lost as a consequence of the British government's refusal to take precautionary measures? Has the Canadian government not learned anything from the British experience? Unfortunately, no. Canadian officials are now repeating the same mistakes made by the British Government. What Should Canada Be Doing? Government must immediately implement an exhaustive testing regime for identifying Mad Cow disease. By only testing 900 cattle a year we are putting Canadians at risk. Like several European countries we should be testing thousands of cattle a week. Canada should immediately ban meat and bone meal from entering the food chain. Cows are not cannibals - they are herbivores and should not eat other animals. Under Canadian law it is presently legal for cattle to be fed a diet derived from mammal "blood, gelatin, rendered animal fat or their products."(37) It is also legal for pigs and chickens, fed on rendered cattle materials, to be rendered and fed back to cattle. This practice must be stopped immediately. In a British experiment, a pig injected with brain material from a BSE cow contracted a TSE.(38) According to William Leiss, President of the prestigious Royal Society of Canada, the federal government should implement a full ban on such feeding practices. "Stop recycling animal protein," said Mr. Leiss. "All of it. Period. That's the answer, because of what we know." (39) The Canadian government should heed recommendations from the World Health Organisation and immediately legislate a total ban on rendered animal protein in livestock feed. If there are cases of Mad Cow disease in Canada, this precautionary measure will prevent it from spreading further. The World Health Organisation and the UN Food & Agriculture Organisation are urging countries to ban feeding cattle with ruminant based feeds. This includes feeds derived from deer and elk which may be infected with Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), a close cousin of BSE. In Canada no such measures have been adopted. It is still common practice for "road-kill" deer and elk to be sent to the rendering plant to be processed into animal feed - despite the fact that government regulators have documented thousands of Canadian elk and deer with CWD. While scientists don't know if CWD can be transmitted from elk and deer to people and/or cattle, it is best to err on the side of caution until ongoing scientific studies have been concluded. Canada should also be deferring blood donations from high-risk groups like deer hunters and elk game farmers who may have contracted CWD. The federal government should also ban vaccines, medicines and other health products made from bovine materials. Approximately 400 such products are available in Canada. At the very least, these potentially hazardous products should be clearly labelled so they can be traced back to their origin in the case of a related outbreak. There are nine common vaccines known to be made with bovine materials, some of which are administered for polio, diphtheria and tetanus. It was reported in the New York Times that despite repeated requests from the US Food and Drug Administration, some of the world's largest drug companies are still using bovine materials from countries known to have Mad Cow disease in their herds.(40) A senior official from Health Canada insists they are "studying" the situation - even though he acknowledges that the threat from such bovine-based products "can't be ruled out."(41) Officials from Health Canada and the CFIA met behind "closed-doors" with cattle industry representatives to discuss the Mad Cow epidemic.(42) Refusing to allow public health advocates attendance in the meeting illustrates the collusion between government regulators and the regulated. To quote Justice Horace Krever, Health Canada "must not delegate their functions to others, nor rely on consensus decision making as a substitute for independent judgement."(43) Warning: System Failure The federal government has been quietly dismantling the Food and Drugs Act and undermining the regulatory responsibilities of the Canadian government in a shift to a "Risk Management" regime - where illness and death are considered acceptable risks. In his last report, Auditor General Denis Desautels concluded that the CFIA was so understaffed that it could not guarantee the safety of Canadian meat.(44) Parliament must revoke regulatory responsibilities for food safety from the CFIA and give them to an in-house, independent agency which reports to the Minister of Health. This agency must be provided with ample resources to undertake rigorous inspection based on a precautionary principle framework - not a "manage the damage" Risk Management scheme. The CFIA is in a clear conflict of interest as both a "promoter" and "regulator" of the agriculture industry.(45) Government regulators must be completely independent from industry - this is paramount. To paraphrase Justice Krever, government must regulate in the public interest, not in the interest of the regulated.(46) There must be an independent public inquiry into the scandalous behavior of the CFIA and Health Canada. The inquiry should report directly to parliament - not the Prime Minister's office - and any officials linked to wrong-doing should be prosecuted. People who knowingly violate the Food & Drugs Act and the Department of Health Act are violating Canada's criminal code and should be held responsible. Accountability saves lives. Precautionary Principal means that, in the face of scientific uncertainty, one should proceed with caution. Government should not wait for scientific certainty about the spread of a disease before it acts to reduce risks.(47) Federal regulators must apply the precautionary principle. Risk management is the language of corporations - not public protection.(48) If the dire threat of Mad Cow disease doesn't justify taking precautionary measures - what does? When evidence of the dangers of Mad Cow disease first began to appear in Britain, policy makers didn't heed the precautionary principle. Instead of basing their policies on a worst-case scenario, they placated industry and hoped for the best. To quote the memorable words of British epidemiologist Sheila Gore, the British government was playing "Russian Roulette with no information on the odds."(49) Let's not let history repeat itself. Let's apply the precautionary principle now. Bradford Duplisea is an independent Ottawa-based researcher who often works on health care and food safety issues for the Canadian Health Coalition. He can be reached at: Bradford.Duplisea@videotron.ca Footnotes: 1. Risk Assessment of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies in Canada, Prepared by Joan Orr and Mary Ellen Starodub for the Health Canada Science Team on TSEs, June 30, 2000; and World Health Organisation, BSE Fact sheet, http://www.who.int/inf-fs/fact113.html 2. United Press International, Feb. 4, 2001, "BSE-contaminated feed said to reach 70 countries" 3. The Canadian Press, Sunday, February 11, 2001, "Canada imported potentially contaminated animal feed, British figures indicate" 4. U.K. government figures indicate that Canada received 30,000 kilograms of meat and bone meal in 1993; 22,000 in 1994; 31,000 in 1995; and 42,000 in 1996, Canadian Press, Sunday, February 11, 2001 5. UN Food & Agriculture Organisation Press Release, http://www.fao.org 6. The Canadian Press, Sunday, February 11, 2001 7. World Health Organisation, BSE Fact sheet, http://www.who.int/inf- fs/fact113.html 8. World Organisation for Animal Health, Number of reported cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) worldwide, http://www.oie.int/eng/info/en_esbmonde.htm 9. The BSE Inquiry, UK, 1999, http://www.bse.org.uk/ 10. World Health Organisation, vCJD Consultations, 1996 11. Scientists first identified pathological features similar to vCJD in the brains of macaque monkeys inoculated with BSE and later established that the transmission characteristics of BSE and vCJD in mice are due to the same causative agent. 12. CBC Radio, BSE expert - Dr. Stephen Dealer on vCJD, January 2001 13. CBC Radio, BSE expert - Dr. Stephen Dealer on vCJD, January 2001 14. Special Report on BSE by Mark Kennedy, Ottawa Citizen, June 2, 2001 "It kills every last victim" 15. Canadian Broadcast Corporation's The National, "Could mad cow be in Canada already", Feb. 21, 2001, http://tv.cbc.ca/national/trans/T010221.html 16. The Globe and Mail, "Mad-Cow threat prompted search for cattle", June 10, 2002 17. The Toronto Star, Jan. 20, 2001 "Europe's mad cow scare raises Canadian alarms" 18. The Toronto Star, Jan. 20, 2001 "Europe's mad cow scare raises Canadian alarms" 19. World Health Organisation, http://www.who.int 20. The Canadian Press, Feb. 15, 2001, "Mad cow infection could be in Canadian beef but not detected: scientists" 21. The New York Times, Jan. 28, 2001 "Americans wake up to threat of Mad Cow Disease" 22. The Canadian Press, Feb. 15, 2001, "Canada's mad cow testing falls short: Scientists" 23. The Canadian Press, Feb. 15, 2001, "Canada's mad cow testing falls short: Scientists" 24. Government Statistics, Canadian Food Inspection Agency 25. David Westaway (scientist from the University of Toronto) on CBC's The National: "Mad Cow Disease" - Three Part Series By Kelly Crowe (Part II), February 2001 26. Reuters, Jan. 12, 2001 "Some Feed Makers Don't Follow 'Mad Cow' rules" 27. Britain's U.K. Customs and Excise Agency 28. Canadian Press, Sunday, Feb. 11, 2001, "Canada imported potentially contaminated animal feed, British figures indicate" 29. Statistics Canada International Trade Division, http://www.healthcoalition.ca/factsheets/import-data.pdf 30. Lyle Vanclief, outside the House of Commons, Feb. 9, 2001 31. Canadian Press, Sunday, February 11, 2001 32. Letter to Allan Rock from the Canadian Health Coalition, Jan. 29, 2001, "Re: Dereliction of Duty to Protect Canadians from BSE and vCJD", http://www.healthcoalition.ca/rockletter1302001.html 33. The National Post, Jan. 27 2001, pg. A15 34. UN FAO Press Release, http://www.fao.org/waicent/ois/PRESS_NE/PRESSENG/2001/pren0103.html 35. Statistics Canada International Trade Division, http://www.healthcoalition.ca/factsheets/import-data.pdf 36. The BSE Inquiry, UK, 1999, http://www.bse.org.uk 37. Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Regulations: Food for Ruminants, Livestock and Poultry (Part XIV), "Prohibited Materials" 38. BSE/vCJD expert Michael Hansen, Ph.D., Consumers Union, Consumer Policy Institute, "Point of View", http://www.consumersunion.org/food/genewsmny798.htm 39. The Ottawa Citizen, June 6, 2001 "The Dangers of Recycling Animal Protein: With the heightened fear surrounding mad cow disease, the spotlight is now on rendering, an `invisible industry' that makes products from animal remains." 40. The New York Times, Feb. 8, 2001, "Five drug makers use material with mad cow link" 41. The Ottawa Citizen, Jan. 24, 2001 "Beware of bovine byproducts: experts" 42. The Ottawa Citizen, Feb. 17, 2001, "Mad cow meeting too cosy: critics" & Calgary Herald, Feb. 17, 2001, "Mad cow disease on federal agenda" 43. Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada by the Honourable Justice Horace Krever: Final Report (Volume 3, Page 996) 44. Report of the Auditor General, The Office of the Auditor General of Canada, February 2001, http://http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/ 45. The Royal Society of Canada, Elements of Caution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada, http://www.rsc.ca 46. Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada by the Honourable Justice Horace Krever: Final Report (Volume 3, Page 995) 47. Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada by the Honourable Justice Horace Krever: Final Report (Volume 3, Page 994) 48. Dr. Michelle Brill-Edwards, Senior Drug Reviewer, Health Canada (1988-1992), Speaking at a Food Safety conference in Ottawa, 1998 49. Sheila Gore, 1996 "Bovine Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease: Failures of Epidemiology Must be Remedied" Lifestyle - Green Goods and Products Fusiotherm Polypropylene Piping from Aquatherm Product Review - Environmental Building News September 2004 There’s a new option for potable-water, hydronic-heating, and other pressurized piping applications: polypropylene from the German company Aquatherm, GmbH. Aquatherm has been producing high-quality Fusiotherm ® polypropylene (PP) piping for 30 years with tremendous success—never having paid a claim for damage due to failure of the piping, despite a well-financed guarantee. Now this piping is available in the U.S. from Aquatherm Piping Systems, LLC, the product’s exclusive importer and distributor. What is immediately apparent when looking at Fusiotherm pipe is the wall thickness. It is thicker than copper and most plastic piping products available here, including cross-linked polyethylene (PEX) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). This gives it tremendous strength and durability, but also makes it less flexible than most PEX piping. The other big difference is the system for fusing joints and connections. A fusing gun, available from Aquatherm, is used to heat both the end of a pipe and the fitting into which it will be secured. After heating for about 10 seconds, the pipe is secured into the fitting, and within about 30 seconds the joint becomes one piece of monolithic polymer. After ten minutes the pipe can be fully pressurized. “You can’t screw it up,” an Aquatherm representative told EBN. Technically, the plastic used in making Fusiotherm is a polypropylene random structure (PP-R) polymer. From an environmental standpoint, polypropylene is one of the cleanest plastics (see EBN Vol. 10, No. 7/8), because it is made entirely of carbon and hydrogen atoms, with no halogens, such as chlorine or bromine, or aromatic (cyclic) rings, which are more likely to be toxic. Of great significance in Europe and the northeastern U.S., where a high percentage of solid waste is incinerated, combustion products released during incineration of PP are considered safer than those released from other plastics, including PVC. Unlike PEX piping, polypropylene is fully recyclable. (The crosslinking of the polyethylene molecules in PEX piping hampers its recyclability.) However, the polypropylene cannot be turned into new Fusiotherm pipe; use of recycled stock would compromise performance or durability, according to the company. Some refer to recycling of a material into a lower-grade product as downcycling. These environmental characteristics have earned Fusiotherm formal approval by Greenpeace in Europe. The environmental organization carried out a detailed assessment and recognized that Fusiotherm satisfies maximum ecological standards and is a “future-compatible” product that is durable, recyclable, and free of PVC, heavy metals, and flame retardants (see EBN Vol. 13, No. 6 for more on flame retardants). The polypropylene polymer and wall thickness give Fusiotherm piping much lower thermal conductivity than copper. This saves some energy by reducing heat loss from hot-water pipes (see EBN Vol. 11, No. 10). It also prevents condensation on cold-water pipes. According to James Brock, a partner in Aquatherm Piping Systems, even the thinnest-walled Fusiotherm pipe has low enough thermal conductivity that cold-water pipes rarely need to be wrapped with insulation to prevent condensation. (Hopefully this won’t prevent builders from insulating hot-water pipes to save energy!) Another advantage, says Brock, is that water flow through Fusiotherm pipe “is quiet, and water hammer is non-existent.” The company makes pipe in a wide range of diameters, from 16 to 150 mm (0.63” to 5.9”) outer diameter, plus over 400 termination fittings. Pipes are available in three wall thicknesses, or SDR (standard dimensional ratio) classifications, which refer to the ratio of the outer diameter of the pipe to the wall thickness—SDR 6 (the thickest, relative to pipe diameter), SDR 7.4, and SDR 11. Fusiotherm is rated at 180°F (82°C) at 100 psi (6.8 bar) water pressure, but expected life is dependent on temperature and pressure. At 122°F (60°C) and 94 psi (6.4 bar), SDR-11 pipe—the most common for houses—should last 50 years. Where higher temperatures or pressures will be experienced, or where longer life is required, thicker-walled pipe should be specified. According to Paul Warren, the other partner of Aquatherm Piping Systems, Fusiotherm withstands freeze-thaw cycles, resists acids and most chemicals, and is FDA-approved for uses with foods. The smooth inner wall gives the pipe a very low coefficient of friction compared with copper, which allows smaller-diameter pipe to be used for some applications. Using pipe with a smaller inner diameter leads to significant energy savings because less water stands in the pipes between uses. If a pipe is punctured (by drilling into it through a wall, for example), the hole can be fully repaired with a heat-fusing plug, using a specialized tool available from the company. For plumbers used to working with copper pipe and soldered connections, Fusiotherm is a less radical change than PEX systems installed in “home-run” configurations (see EBN Vol. 11, No. 10). The big difference compared with copper is in how the joints and connections are made. For tight bends in residential radiant-floor systems, the company also produces a more flexible polybutylene (PB) piping (brand name Aquatherm ®). While some American PB systems experienced problems with cracked fittings in the 1980s, Aquatherm uses a very different approach, according to Brock. Aquatherm’s PB piping has a very good track record in Europe, where it has been used for 20 years. PB pipe connections use special fittings rather than heat-fusing. Fusiotherm is available in 57 countries and was recently introduced to the U.S. Use of polypropylene for pressurized-pipe applications in the U.S. will remain limited, however, until code listings are completed. “We had to write an ASTM standard for polypropylene pressure pipe that was just accepted: ASTM F2389-4,” according to Brock. He told EBN that NSF International (previously the National Sanitary Foundation) just certified the pipe to that ASTM standard. “Now we can petition ICC [the International Code Council] and IAPMO [the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials] for code listings and product approval.” Just before EBN went to press, Brock reported that the ICC will complete the listing of Fusiotherm by the end of October 2004. Brock expects that within another year there will be significant markets for their PP pipe in the U.S. Currently, Fusiotherm is cheaper than copper pipe, but that is a temporary anomaly due to unusually high copper prices. Usually, Fusiotherm is slightly more expensive. However, labor costs—once plumbers become familiar with installation—are lower with Fusiotherm than with copper, according to Warren. Aquatherm’s insurer carries a liability policy that protects users for ten years against property damage. Warren told EBN that while the product is new in the U.S., it is generating a lot of excitement. “It was a hit” at the 2004 NAHB International Builders’ Show, he said. Ray Antonelli, president of Focused Resources, Inc. in Highland Heights, Ohio, first noticed Fusiotherm at that convention and now uses it for potable-water piping in home renovations. Although the size of the fusing gun makes it difficult to maneuver in cramped spaces, Antonelli told EBN, the absence of an open flame more than makes up for it. “It’s safer to use around wood,” he said. “Especially in reconstruction, you never know what you’re going to find in the wall of a home.” Once Fusiotherm gains code approval, Antonelli plans to use it routinely: “It’s cost-competitive with copper, it’s much easier to work with, and it takes about half the time to install.” For more information: James Brock, Partner Aquatherm Piping Systems, LLC 2155 Bonnie Brae Street Rochester Hills, MI 48309 248-830-7037 More Info: http://www.aquatherm-usa.com Politics - News and Action TWO WAYS TO DEAL WITH AN EMERGENCY (an article inspired by a local Green Party member) from: Toronto Star By Cameron Smith, Saturday ,May 17, 2003 There are two ways to deal with an emergency. The messy way is to wrestle with it. The smart way is to avoid it altogether. Faced with an electricity shortage this summer, the Ontario government has announced that it is choosing the messy way. It wants to bring in portable diesel generators to increase the supply of electricity. What's more, if the Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (OEFC) gets its way, the amount of air pollution created by the generators won't be disclosed. Since the electricity shortfall will reach 200 to 400 megawatts - nearing the 500 megawatts produced by each coal-fired unit at the Nanticoke generating station, the worst polluter in North America - and since diesel generation is just as dirty, if not dirtier than coal, there's no doubt the diesel generators will add seriously to pollution. The only question is how many people will diesel pollution add to the hundreds whose deaths will be accelerated by smog this summer? We can't estimate the number, because the OEFC wants information about diesel pollution kept behind closed doors. It's asking the government to forego an environmental assessment. But there's another way, a smart way, to deal with the impending crisis. It's to avoid a shortfall in the first place. I'm indebted to Jerry Heath for the idea. He's the Green Party candidate for the provincial riding of Leeds-Grenville in the upcoming election. He says demand for electricity during peak hours could be cut by more than 600 megawatts if every household in Ontario were given compact fluorescent light bulbs to replace the 20 conventional, incandescent bulbs most commonly turned on. Compacts use a quarter of the electricity required by incandescents. Besides avoiding an electricity shortage, the compacts would add a cushion of extra supply for good measure. Supplying the compact fluorescents would cost about $450 million. (Since IKEA sells compacts for $5.50, I assume they're available at a wholesale price of less than $5.) $450 million is a hefty figure, but the government could recoup all but a fraction of it - a total of $434 million - within one year by raising the cap on electricity prices from 4.3 cents a kilowatt hour to 4.8 cents. The beauty of this scheme is that raising electricity prices to this level wouldn't add to the bills of householders because, with compact fluorescents, they'd be using less electricity. What's more, compacts will last for an average of seven years. So for the following six years, Hydro One would continue collecting $434 million a year that could be used to lower the hydro debt without increasing the bills to householders. Everyone would win, and there would be no crisis. Last year, the hydro debt mounted because there was a $1.5 billion difference between what was paid to electricity generators at the average market rate of 6.22 cents a kilowatt hour, and what householders and small businesses were charged at the capped rate of 4.3 cents a kilowatt hour. In these calculations, I've assumed that an average householder uses 550 kilowatt hours a month, and has been paying $23.65 a month. Boosting the capped rate to 4.8 cents a kilowatt hour would raise the charge to $26.40, an extra $2.75 a month. But the householder would pay only 11 cents extra because lighting needs would be cut by 55 kilowatt hours. Readers may take issue with these figures. I admit they're rough. But the concept is solid. It will save money, and it will save lives. Would you like to be on our mailing list? Click here to receive important announcements and our weekly online newsletter: Green Light.   Click here to visit the Green Party of Canada website

HOME | about us | Campaigns | values | Kingston | news | events | links | contact us | FAQ | facts | search | discussion | SUPPORT US!
© kingston greens 2003