GlobalEnviroBlog

Some Thoughts on Making Space More Attractive:

In the 1960s, space was special. People eagerly watched for news about the brave astronauts. Today, much of the news about space is a footnote. People often see no advantage in space exploration. The future of space exploration is flickering and not as bright as it once was.

Why has space lost its luster? The old saying “Familiarity breeds contempt.” probably sums up a large part of it. People have become too accustomed to the almost routine nature of the launches. It was easier to get excited when there were only seven astronauts. Today there are hundreds.

Perhaps we should focus our sites on the benefits we receive and will receive from space.

•  Satellite communication allows almost instantaneous communication around the world.
• Survey satellites allow detailed monitoring of such vital information as air temperature, water temperature, natural resources and weather. Using this data we can evaluate the rate of global climate change and potentially undo any damage we have done.
• The GPS network of satellites allow us to know where we are, what time it is, and how fast we are moving.
• Microgravity experiments on the International Space Station are leading to discoveries about living things and are contributing to the development of new materials and drugs that can’t be made on Earth.
• Helium-3 is found on the moon. This is the key to successful fusion power generation. Fusion power using helium-3 produces little to no radioactive waste and a tremendous amount of power with no carbon dioxide emissions. As such, helium-3 is worth more than any substance known to humankind.
• The proposed opening of space to tourism in 2009 by Virgin Galactic will make space travel available to more than the extremely rich.

The benefits of continued space exploration far outweigh the costs. The researches spawned by this venture help us protect the environment and ultimately may lead to the key to our survival.

Richard Moolick
Global Enviroblog

The nutritious protein provided by seafood can be a delicious part of your meal. Before you eat your seafood, take a moment to ask yourself if it is safe to eat for you and for the environment.

You may ask, “How can I tell if my seafood is environmentally safe?”

One must become aware of how the seafood was caught, where it was caught and what health concerns may exist.

Seafood that is farmed is usually better environmentally than wild seafood. The following examples are farm raised or caught in an environmentally sustainable method:[1]

Many of the other fish are overfished, contaminated by heavy metals, or harvested by means that endanger many species. Many of the species reproduce slowly and are prone to overfishing.

Enjoy seafood, but do your part in protecting the environment. By being aware of where your seafood is obtained and whether it is caught or farmed, you can help to keep the diversity of aquatic life necessary for a healthy ecosystem.

Richard Moolick

Global EnviroBlog

Statistics have shown time and again that telework has the effect of increasing productivity, lowering production costs, eliminating commuting costs and drastically reducing absenteeism. Why, then, are employers so resistant to the concept?

The simple truth is employers think employees won’t do their work if they work from home. And employees feel that their job will be exported to Mumbai, India, if they work from home. It is this mutual distrust that has slowed progress on earning our freedom from foreign oil.

There is a simple solution to this stalemate. If work is based on units of production completed instead of hourly wages, people working from home will be more productive than those working on the time clock. Working from home actually reduces the costs of production while increasing the disposable income of Americans. Companies will realize greater production and lower costs. Employees will gain by saving commuting time and eliminating the ever-rising commuting costs.

As to the other half of the equation, employers need to get away from short-sighted cost accounting and move toward strengthening markets. Many companies have fallen into the cost-accounting trap. Management sees the export of American jobs to overseas locations as a quick way to improve the bottom line. Unfortunately, the companies don’t raise the standard of living in the countries to which they export jobs. The long-term result is a lowering of the buying power of the American workforce, their main market.

Really, companies that export American jobs to countries because they can pay $2.50 per hour instead of $12.00 per hour or more are doing immeasurable harm to the United States of America. The American Dream is being ruthlessly denied to most Americans in order to show a temporary and artificial profit. Even the stockholders of these companies face reduced returns on investment. The CEOs and other top executives of these companies reward themselves with astronomical bonuses and walk away from the problems they create. The problems become somebody else’s problems.

It may take federal and state legislation to restore the American Dream to everyone. I believe American jobs must be protected. We must break the addiction to foreign oil, NOW!

Richard Moolick

Global-EnviroBlog

Call 4 Action

The use of Biofuels to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is being deliberately stalled and blocked by special interest groups. Exxon-Mobil, Texaco, the Western States Petroleum Association, the Engine Manufacturers Association, and the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers have petitioned effectively to ban the sale of B100 (pure biodiesel) American automobile manufacturers have agreed to void the warrantees on any diesel vehicle that is run on biodiesel.

Let’s take a closer look at biodiesel as a fuel. Biodiesel has been shown to have the following properties:

1.       Biodiesel is not toxic. In fact biodiesel is less toxic than table salt. Petroleum diesel is mildly toxic.

2.       Biodiesel is biodegradable. Biodiesel is broken down and metabolized by soil bacteria faster than sugar. Petroleum diesel is extremely slow to biodegrade. A spill of petroleum diesel takes weeks to decades to break down.

3.       Biodiesel has more energy per gallon than petroleum diesel.

4.       Biodiesel produces forty percent less atmospheric carbon per gallon than petroleum diesel.

5.       Biodiesel lubricates the parts of a diesel engine better than petroleum diesel.

6.       Biodiesel can be made from any vegetable oil or animal fat. Petroleum diesel is made from petroleum, seventy-five percent of which comes from other countries.

7.       Biodiesel has a higher flashpoint than petroleum diesel, making it less explosive.

8.       Biodiesel is significantly cheaper than Petroleum diesel.

With the safety and environmental benefits of biodiesel, why are the above special interest groups trying to block it? The answer to this question is clear when you look at who opposes biodiesel. The widespread use of biodiesel will cut into the record profits of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington, D.C., big oil. Throughout Europe, biodiesel is produced and sold. Automotive manufacturers in Europe have no reservations about the use of biodiesel in their engines.

If you don’t like paying ever higher prices at the pump, or facing the specters of fuel rationing and a vicious and corrupt black market, call or write your Senators, Congressional Representatives and other government officials Federal, State and Local. Demand that biofuels be given a chance to ease the crisis. Big oil should not control the biofuels industry. Biofuels should be emergent from small business, creating new American jobs and restoring energy independence from foreign oil.

Richard Moolick

http://www.Call4Action.info

On a drive through the Midwest, a familiar aroma announces that a feedlot is nearby. Wouldn’t it be nice if the aroma of a feedlot could be reduced without using a lot of resources to do it?

A biological remediation of this problem can be done so that useful and valuable products are created by the same processes that reduce the odors. In fact the processes I am discussing can make the reduction in odors profitable.

The semi-liquid excrement that cattle in feedlots and cows in dairies deposit is the main source of the odor. Let me describe a system that will effectively turn this odoriferous problem into valuable products.

STAGE 1: Using timed jets of water, the excrement is flushed into a sump where it is pumped into a large anaerobic fermenter. The methanogenic bacteria naturally occurring in the manure ferment the manure, producing methane.

STAGE 2: The methane produced in the first stage is fed, as fuel, into either a boiler or a gas turbine. The steam from the boiler and the torque from the gas turbine spin a generator. The resulting electricity is usually more than enough to handle the energy needs of the dairy or feedlot with power to spare.

STAGE 3: The sludge that sinks to the bottom of the fermenter can be used as fertilizer or as a biomass fuel that can be burned for additional energy. The anaerobic fermentation destroys the bacteria that produce the strong odors in manure, leaving the fertilizer less odoriferous.

Figure 1 shows a simplified layout of this process. The use of this system to handle the solid waste generated by the cattle accomplishes several things. First, it helps to significantly reduce the odors of the feedlot. Second, it generates enough energy to supply the entire feedlot. And, third, the biomass produced in the process can be used as a reduced odor fertilizer or burned in a boiler to produce more energy.

It is easy to see how this process has the potential of paying for itself in a relatively short period. I would love to consult with any such facility that chooses to employ this biological solution to their challenges.

Richard T. Moolick

Chemical Engineer

We’ve seen the ads on television and heard the ads on radio recommending the use of CFLs (Coiled Fluorescent Lights) instead of incandescent bulbs. While it is true that CFLs use less power and usually last longer than incandescent bulbs, it is not as green as it sounds.

A 60W incandescent bulb puts out about 800 lumens and uses about 216kWh for each hour it is on and lasts an average of 1,000 hours. A comparable 15W CFL puts out about 800 lumens and uses about 54kWh for each hour it is on and lasts an average of 5,000 to 10,000 hours. Switching to CFLs, therefore, would appear to save 162kWh for each hour of use. So why then am I not convinced that CFLs are the best energy-saving replacements for incandescent bulbs?

The light emitting diode is another alternative. Light bulb-sized LED arrays producing about 800 lumens use about 12W or around 43kWh for each hour of operation and lasts an average of 60,000 hours. This amounts to a savings of 173kWh over incandescent or 11kWh per hour over CFLs. So why should we spend the extra money up front (LEDs cost about 10 time as much as CFLs.) for LEDs when we get almost the same economy with CFLs?

The reason is in how they work. An incandescent light works by running current through a filament in a sealed argon bulb. The resistance of the filament to the flow of electricity causes the filament to heat up and glow. A fluorescent light works by ionizing a small amount of mercury vapor so that it emits ultraviolet light. A phosphor coating on the inside of the tube glows in response to the UV light. An LED electrically stimulates molecules in the solid state chip to high energy levels. As the molecules drop back to their normal state, light is emitted.

LEDs make more sense to use than CFLs due to the fact that a “burned out” CFL is hazardous waste and must be disposed of as hazardous waste. Throwing CFLs in the trash can ultimately lead to contaminating ground water with mercury, a potentially deadly toxic metal. LEDs don’t contain such toxic residues.

Richard T. Moolick