http://fireflyeco.com/
rss
email
twitter
  • About

Plastic bag manufacturers sue reusable bag maker.

Posted on Jun 15 2011 by Daniel
Tweet

The reusable bag maker, ChicoBag, has committed a terrible, terrible crime: they’ve used facts and data to point out that plastic bags are bad for the environment.

Now, I know what you’re thinking, using facts and data is bad enough, but the worst part is, all of that information is cutting into the plastic bag manufacturer’s sales.  Hilex Poly Company, LLC, Superbag Operating, LTD, and Advance Polybag, Inc. are suing ChicoBag for “irreparable damage” to their business, based largely on Chico’s “Learn the Facts” page with bombshells like these:

Of more than ten million pieces of garbage picked up on ocean beaches in 2009 during International Coastal Cleanup Day, 1,126,774 were plastic bags. Plastic bag debris was second only to cigarette butts/filters (21%) in number and accounted for full 11% of ALL marine debris picked up.

The reason that turtles ingest marine debris is not known with certainty. It has been suggested that debris, such as plastic bags, look similar to, and are mistaken for jellyfish. Studies on dead turtles reported ingestion of marine debris in 79.6% of the turtles that were examined from the Western Mediterranean (Tomas et al. 2002), 60.5% of turtles in Southern Brazil (Bugoni et al. 2001) and 56% of turtles in Florida (Bjordal et al. 1994)

I mean how biased can they be?  They don’t even talk about how at least the turtles die with a full belly, or how the jellyfish population can now float through the ocean unmolested by those evil turtles.  Ingrates!

This is the inevitable last-resort for an industry that is clearly on its way out.  First, they ignored reusable bags as a fringe product for tree huggers, then, when it looked like people were actually moving away from disposable bags, the plastic industry sponsored several studies trying to show how “dirty” reusable bags could be.  If you can’t beat ‘em, scare ‘em, am I right?

This story is just begging for some equally ironic and silly headlines:

BP is suing ocean birds for trying to steal oil from the Gulf spill by absorbing it into their feathers.

The tobacco industry has filed suit against parents who warn their children not to smoke due to “lung cancer.”

Now you try to write a similarly ironic headline!  And stop using plastic bags already!

via Gizmodo

 


1 comment
  Tags: ocean, plastic bags Category: Food and Agriculture, Pollution, Solid Waste, Water

Remember: you’re the one spinning

Posted on Jun 10 2011 by Daniel
Tweet

credit: jupiterjazz

We’ve all seen images and time-lapse movings showing start trails as they loop around the sky.  But really, we’re the ones turning…

Weird!


no comments
  Tags: astronomy, space, STARS Category: Nature

Yes, we know California is awesome.

Posted on Jun 9 2011 by Daniel
Tweet

credit: José Antonio Galloso

Joe Romm, climate guy and the author of a very good book on Lean + Sustainability, has a thought provoking post on the role of energy efficiency in our carbon-reduction portfolio.  It’s a decent read, but the following claims have me stumped:

In the past three decades, electricity per capita has stayed flat in Californian while it has risen 60% in the rest of the country. If all Americans had the same per capita electricity demand as Californians, we would cut electricity consumption 40%. And if all of America adopted the same energy efficiency policies that California is now putting in place, the country would never have to build another power plant.

Does anyone have any data to back this up?

Is it due to the higher cost of electricity in California?

Is the 60% increase everywhere else due to bigger houses, more gadgets, or something else?

Is it possible to achieve this type of per capita consumption in other parts of the country that may have much higher heating or cooling loads?

 


2 comments
  Tags: california, efficiency, romm Category: Carbon, Energy, Policy

Wrangling Messy Data

Posted on Jun 1 2011 by Daniel
Tweet

 

credit: Ko:(char *)hook

Anyone who works with data on a regular basis will encounter that nightmare data set: it’s in a format, but not the one you want.  It needs new labels, you want to extract part of one row, and there’s a bunch of missing data.

Every year, I received my nightmare data set: approximately 20,000 records of flights by faculty, students, and staff of the University.  The file contained the price of the flight, and the hand-typed city destinations (notice I did not say it also contained the origin?)  and my job was to figure out how many tons of carbon were released along the way.

Do you know how many ways people can spell New Orleans?  It’s at least 7.  To calculate distances (and therefore emissions) I needed to pare this list down substantially and find inter-city distances.

Typically, with a nightmare data set, you’d resign yourself to fixing the data by hand, row by row, in Excel.  Copy paste copy paste copy paste, but there’s no way I was doing that with 20,000 records.

If you’re really advanced, you could write a script in Perl or Python to reformat things, but that takes almost as much time as the manual repositioning.  There must be some other way.

In fact, there is.  Google has offered a product called Refine for some time now.

Google Refine is a power tool for working with messy data, cleaning it up, transforming it from one format into another, extending it with web services, and linking it to databases like Freebase.

I used Refine to automatically identify misspelled city names, based on common characters and even common sounds in the word.  It can recognize that someone typing “Feniks” really meant “Phoenix”, even though they don’t have that many letters in common.

Still, with all of its features and power, I found Refine to be a bit cumbersome, and I still had to perform some transformations in JMP and other programs.

That’s why I’m so excited to work with Data Wrangler from Stanford.  Like Refine, it’s browser-based, but it has some extremely intuitive and easy-to-use features that may make it my go-to data cleaner.  Check this video:

Wrangler Demo Video from Stanford Visualization Group on Vimeo.

I played with their sample data, and I must say, it’s a really enjoyable interface.  Certainly a tool to bookmark for your data-wrangling toolbox.


no comments
  Tags: air travel, cleaning, data, data wrangler, refine Category: Carbon, EcoMetrics, InfoVis

PlotWatt Labs: Boiling a pot of water, Part II

Posted on May 11 2011 by Daniel
Tweet

In the last post, we had a real head-scratcher from a real tea-drinker.  Francis wanted four cups of tea in an hour, and he wondered whether it’s smarter to boil all of that water at once in his electric kettle, re-heating it as necessary, or just to boil one cup of water from the tap each time.

What’s the difference?

Advocates for the bulk-boil camp argue that there’s an energy cost of heating up the kettle and the water.  If you boil all of the water at once, the greater thermal mass of water will retain more heat and you won’t be cooling off the kettle with your frigid tap water each time.

Those in the “one-at-a-time” camp felt that a single cup boil would be more efficient because the kettle may not be well insulated.  Also, if you boil more water than you drink, any gains you make in efficiency would be lost by heating unneeded water.

I was a staunch advocate of the single-cup method, reasoning that maintaining water at high temperatures just makes the heat radiate, conduct, and convect faster.  It’s a lot like the beach ball analogy we used when looking at programmable thermostats – the more you inflate a pin-pricked beach ball, the faster the air leaks out.  Reducing the pressure (or heat difference, in this case) reduces the energy loss.

Enough conjecture, let’s get to the experiment.

To the lab!

I set up the tea kettle with a plug-load monitor to keep track of energy use, and then placed the kettle on a scale.  Those of us who like the metric system know that one milliliter of water weighs about one gram, so I could keep track of my water volume without pouring it in and out of a measuring cup and increasing the heat loss.

I did the single cup experiment at first by pouring one cup (between 239 and 242 grams in my trials) of cold tap-water into the kettle and pushing the button.  The kettle boiled and I recorded how much water was left after some evaporated during boiling.  I then emptied the water into my wife’s teacup, waited 15 minutes, and got fresh water from the tap for the next run.

For the bulk boiling experiment, I filled the kettle with 965 grams of water (the total of my four single cups) and hit boil.  I then weighed the kettle, poured about 240 grams into a tea cup, and waited 15 minutes before re-boiling the remaining 3 cups.  I repeated the process until all the water was gone.

Crunching the numbers

The results?  Here’s the tea-kettle’s energy use over time for my two experiments:

First, you’ll notice that the kettle behaves very predictably, coming up to 1,370 watts, remaining on while the water boils, and then turning back off.  You’ll see my four individual cups across the top, and the bulk boil’s four cups across the bottom.

In the single cup experiment, the boil time (and therefore energy use) for each cup was about the same.  The tap water started between 65 and 70 degrees F and boiled in an average of 1 minute 44 seconds, consuming an average of 39.3 watt hours.

The total energy consumed by boiling four cups, one at a time was 157 watt hours. If you’re paying 10 cents per kWh, that tea cost you just shy of two cents.

Boiling four cups all at once has a different profile: there’s a much longer initial spike (5 minutes 13 seconds) and then the subsequent re-heats take a little less time since the water is already hot (between 142 and 180 degrees F with the hotter temps corresponding to the higher volume of water).  Here are all the times for each experiment:

The total energy consumed by boiling the four cups by the bulk method was 190 watt hours, about 21% more energy than the single cup method. Where is all of that extra energy going?

Single cups win, but why?

A big piece of the energy loss is due to evaporation.  By boiling each cup individually, I lost 52 grams of water (between 12 and 15 per cup) due to evaporation.  Those steam molecules take energy with them to the tune of 2257 joules per gram (the heat of vaporization).  Since a watt is 1 joule per second, each gram of water that evaporates takes with it 0.63 watt hours, accounting for over 20% of the total energy input to boiling, and that’s without even opening the lid on the kettle.

Bulk-boiled water had longer to sit at hotter temperatures, and it lost 68 grams of water, or just over 22% of its energy to evaporation.  In fact, my last cup of tea from this experiment was a scant 177 grams, or 3/4 of a cup.  In effect, I’d have had to boil MORE water initially if I wanted to get close to my full final cup of tea.

So bulk boiling took 33 more Watt-hours than boiling one at a time.  Thirty percent of that was due to evaporation, and the other 70 percent was likely due to radiation, conduction, and convection caused by holding hot (140-180 degree) water in a room that is 71 degrees.

Now therefore, we the jury find that…

The winner of this test is boiling one cup at a time, just-in-time.

I should probably point out that the difference amounts to about 3 tenths of a cent.  In the end, you may value the quick re-heat of the bulk boiled water, or the convenience of not running to the faucet for each cup.  If that’s the case, go dig for change in the couch, and you can probably cover the cost of your slightly less-efficient ways.

Or better yet, get a thermos and make your tea in bulk.  Then, when you get a craving, your piping-hot tea is just a click and pour away.


1 comment
  Tags: appliances, boiling, kWh, plotwatt labs, Water Category: EcoMetrics, Energy, InfoVis, PlotWatt, Residential

PlotWatt Labs: Boiling a pot of water, Part I

Posted on May 9 2011 by Daniel
Tweet

Here's the recipe for boiled water!

There’s a vigorous discussion over on the PlotWatt blog regarding the best way to boil water.  It sounds like a silly discussion, but in reality, there are real energy differences between boiling on the stove, in an electric kettle, or in the microwave.

The latest commenter poses an interesting question:

I always use an electric kettle to boil water for tea. Around here, in green circles, it is like a mantra to “only boil water for what you will immediately use” – in practice this means pouring your water into your mug, then pouring it into the kettle to heat.

However, I’ve had a longstanding argument with my brother about this, and perhaps you can shed some light on it. In the morning, i would drink about four cups of tea, probably in the space of about an hour. I heat all the water at first, reheating it as and when i want another cup. When you reheat the water when it’s been previously boiled, it boils very quickly, though of course the initial boiling takes longer (though not four times as long). I think it would take more energy to boil four separate cups of water from cold. Wouldn’t it?

Of course there would be an optimum – if you left it too long you would lose the initial boiling energy. What do you think?

-Frances

So, dear readers, what do YOU think?  Should Frances boil one-cup-at-a-time like a good greenie, or is it actually more efficient to boil all four cups at once and just spike the kettle when he wants a boiling cup?

I’ve done the experiment, so I will post the answer later in the week….


2 comments
  Tags: boiling, cooking, plotwatt labs, Water Category: EcoMetrics, Energy, PlotWatt, Residential

Why not have both?

Posted on May 5 2011 by Daniel
Tweet

I think the word you’re looking for is “irony.”


no comments
  Tags: home comfort, humor Category: Residential

Snap! You’re an arborist!

Posted on May 3 2011 by Daniel
Tweet

Okay, I know all of my readers are some form of tree-hugger, so can you name this tree just by its leaf?

 

If you said “Maple,” please turn in your Birkenstocks and re-usable organic granola canister as you leave. You are officially out of the Tree-Hugger club.

That, my friends, is the leaf of an American Sycamore.  Next time we hold a quiz, you’ll want to have the Leafsnap iPhone app at the ready.

Leafsnap, developed by Columbia University, the University of Maryland, and the Smithsonian Institution, is an electronic field guide that lets you identify trees along your trail just by taking a photo. You can then keep a collection of the ones you’ve seen, and even help them expand their database.

Sounds kinda geeky, I know, but you’ll be surprised at how interesting nature becomes when you actually know something about it and can interact in an intuitive way.  Rather than memorizing leaves by rote for your botany class, you can ID the dogwood in your front yard, or figure out which trees to revisit when they fruit later in the summer.

I also really dig the astronomy apps for smart phones.  It’s surprisingly cool to look up at the night sky and identify stars and constellations the way people did a few thousand years ago.  Well, same constellations, but they didn’t “have an app for that.”  You get the idea.


no comments
  Tags: apps, iPhone, leaves, trees Category: Nature

Up In Smoke

Posted on Apr 26 2011 by Daniel
Tweet

Your great grandparents were knuckle-dragging barbarians.  They grew their food in :gasp: dirt and let the sun and rain get ALL over everything.  Yuck.

Luckily, we now live in a bright, clean world of nutrient broth, halogen bulbs, and air filters.  No more trudging out into the nasty world to pick crops, we can grow everything from herbs to um… herb in the comfort and safety of our homes.

Sarcasm aside, I must say that I’ve been quite surprised by the up-tick in the popularity of hydroponics and indoor gardening of late.  Granted, it’s always been popular with marijuana growers as a way to control moisture, light, and pests while simultaneously avoiding detection.  I’m more surprised to find people using hydroponic systems to grow things like lettuce or herbs in the kitchen.

Really, people? Really?

Okay, I get it.  I live in a condo with more trees and fewer windows.  I don’t have acres of garden space, and my kitchen is too shady to grow sun-loving herbs.

But for Beet’s sake, go to the farmer’s market and buy something from someone who does have those resources.  I’ve never once thought, “Gosh, I wish I could grow a tomato using coal and nuclear power.”

And that’s the reality – all of this indoor/hydroponic senselessness comes with a cost.  Instead of soaking up free, dependable sunlight, these setups are literally mining and burning for the energy it takes to grow a salad or a smoke. And it’s the smoke that set me on this tirade in the first place.

credit: Medical Marijuana Project

A new independent study from Evan Mills, an energy and environmental systems analyst currently working for the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, claims that:

…indoor Cannabis production results in energy expenditures of $5 billion each year, with electricity use equivalent to that of 2 million average U.S. homes. This corresponds to 1% of national electricity consumption or 2% of that in households. The yearly greenhouse-gas pollution (carbon dioxide, CO2 ) from the electricity plus associated transportation fuels equals that of 3 million cars. Energy costs constitute a quarter of wholesale value.

From the perspective of individual consumers, a single Cannabis cigarette [read: joint] represents 2 pounds of CO2 emissions, an amount equal to running a 100-watt light bulb for 17 hours with average U.S. electricity.

I don’t know whether 1% sounds like a big or small number to you, but to me it sounds huge for a single source.  To put that into perspective:

The approximately 22 billion kilowatt-hours/year estimated for indoor Cannabis production is about one-third that of US data centers or one-sixth that of US household refrigerators.

So remember, next time you get the urge to burn one down, ask your local drug dealer whether his goods are grown outside with organic practices and fair wages for the “farmer.”  You don’t want your weed grown on a “factory farm,” do you? ;)


1 comment
  Tags: drugs, garden, hydroponics, marijuana Category: Carbon, Energy, Food and Agriculture

LED Deal Redux

Posted on Apr 24 2011 by Daniel
Tweet

Earth LED is running their light bulb sale again this year, and the price is even lower than last year.

Last Earth Day, I paid $15.99 for the ZetaLux 2 bulb, and $24.99 for the Pro version.  Having had them for a year now, I’m very happy with the light quality, and of course, they haven’t burned out yet. ;)

I’ve got two ZetaLux2 bulbs (“40 watt equivalent”) and one Pro (“60 watt equivalent”) and they’re plenty bright for me.  Just keep in mind that 40 and 60 watt “equivalent” are not straightforward measures.

A 60 watt incandescent bulb puts out over 800 lumens of light, and consumes 60 watts.  The ZetaLux2 Pro bulb produces about 550 lumens for the cool white bulb (warm white LEDs will actually produce less light!) so I’m not sure what’s so “equivalent” about it, but that’s just how it goes.  Again, I don’t feel like I’m reading by oil lamp  - they’re good bulbs and they only consume 7 watts.

If you want your kitchen to be lit like Fenway Park, you may want to go with a halogen.  If you want to eat your Wheaties without getting a tan, an LED should suit you just fine, and you won’t find the bulbs this cheap very often.


no comments
  Tags: LED, light bulb, sale, zetalux Category: Energy, Residential
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Twitter

What you’re saying:

  • D on Beware the Heat Pump Thermostat
  • Heatmandoug on Beware the Heat Pump Thermostat
  • Joeblow on Solar Sheep

Warning: Favicon handling has been removed, please use your own handling in /homepages/13/d88848155/htdocs/fireflyeco/wp-includes/class-simplepie.php on line 3006

Warning: Favicon handling has been removed, please use your own handling in /homepages/13/d88848155/htdocs/fireflyeco/wp-includes/class-simplepie.php on line 3006

Warning: Favicon handling has been removed, please use your own handling in /homepages/13/d88848155/htdocs/fireflyeco/wp-includes/class-simplepie.php on line 3006

Warning: Favicon handling has been removed, please use your own handling in /homepages/13/d88848155/htdocs/fireflyeco/wp-includes/class-simplepie.php on line 3006

Warning: Favicon handling has been removed, please use your own handling in /homepages/13/d88848155/htdocs/fireflyeco/wp-includes/class-simplepie.php on line 3006

Warning: Favicon handling has been removed, please use your own handling in /homepages/13/d88848155/htdocs/fireflyeco/wp-includes/class-simplepie.php on line 3006

Warning: Favicon handling has been removed, please use your own handling in /homepages/13/d88848155/htdocs/fireflyeco/wp-includes/class-simplepie.php on line 3006

Warning: Favicon handling has been removed, please use your own handling in /homepages/13/d88848155/htdocs/fireflyeco/wp-includes/class-simplepie.php on line 3006

Warning: Favicon handling has been removed, please use your own handling in /homepages/13/d88848155/htdocs/fireflyeco/wp-includes/class-simplepie.php on line 3006

Warning: Favicon handling has been removed, please use your own handling in /homepages/13/d88848155/htdocs/fireflyeco/wp-includes/class-simplepie.php on line 3006

Warning: Favicon handling has been removed, please use your own handling in /homepages/13/d88848155/htdocs/fireflyeco/wp-includes/class-simplepie.php on line 3006

Warning: Favicon handling has been removed, please use your own handling in /homepages/13/d88848155/htdocs/fireflyeco/wp-includes/class-simplepie.php on line 3006

Blogroll

  • Gemba Panta Rei
    Kaizen in Logistics and Supply Chains
    May 18, 2013

  • information aesthetics
    Words & Votes: The Changing Congressional Opinions on Gun Violence
    May 17, 2013

  • Green Building Advisor Blogs
    Energy Upgrades for Beginners
    May 17, 2013

  • FlowingData
    Coaches are highest paid public employees
    May 17, 2013

  • Energy Circle
    Is Call Tracking a Good Idea for Home Performance Companies?
    May 15, 2013

  • Chart Porn
    2000 years of Global Temperatures
    May 15, 2013

  • JMP Blog
    JMP data modeling challenge launched by ENBIS
    May 15, 2013

  • Lean Insider
    Can Lean Be Green?
    May 15, 2013

  • Visual Business Intelligence
    A More Thoughtful but No More Convincing View of Big Data
    May 13, 2013

  • Home Performance NC
    Builders and HVAC contractors: we can help you with duct testing for 2012 NCECC requirements!
    November 26, 2012

Categories

  • Carbon
  • Commercial
  • Design
  • EcoMetrics
  • Energy
  • Financial
  • Food and Agriculture
  • InfoVis
  • Lean
  • Nature
  • PlotWatt
  • Policy
  • Pollution
  • Presentation
  • Residential
  • Solid Waste
  • Transportation
  • Water

Tags

agriculture appliances bacteria biomimicry buildings cap and trade carbon footprint cash for clunkers CFL climate change computers corn data efficiency electricity grid home comfort humidity humor HVAC LCA Lean LED legislation lighting maps marketing offsets oil organic recycling renewables SciLights smart grid social justice software solar statistics subsidies TEDTalks transportation UNC visualization waste Water

  • About
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License