I have heard a lot of discussion lately about the possible uses for fly ash from coal-fired power plants, such as use in roads or wallboard. I have also read some literature stating that there could be some risks with using fly ash commercially, given the chemicals contained within it. As much as we have some serious environmental problems in this country, I was really taken aback by a photo I saw this morning from the Associated Press. The photo showed people on motorcycles in New Delhi, India, engulfed in what looked like a fly ash dust storm. The most gripping part of the photo was that the motorcycle at the front of the photo showed a couple with two very small children on a motorcycle together. Ironically, the man wore a helmet, while it looked like the woman and the two children did not. The woman is covering the heads of the two children to shield them from the fly ash. The photo's caption notes that the slurry containing fly ash was "channeled from the nearby Indraprastha thermal power station and is dried in open pits, but the wind carries it to adjoining areas." I was confused as to what a thermal power station has to do with fly ash, since I did not equate a thermal power station with a coal-fired power plant. In any event, it is a rather shocking photo, as there seems to be no protection for those near the plant from these fly ash particles and the chemicals contained within them. I would guess that the environmental conditions there would never be allowed in the U.S., even with our high PM 2.5 and ozone levels during some of the summer months. This photo to me represented the real price that developing nations are paying in trying to industrialize too rapidly. The U.S. really needs to step up on energy and environmental issues, particularly global warming, if it wants nations like India and China to follow suit. Judging by this photo, the health of those in major Indian cities is often being seriously compromised.

I was in Target this morning, perusing the baby aisle for some things I needed. I came across a whole assortment of cups, plates and utensils called "Tossables" and "Take and Toss" (or something to that effect). All of the items were made of plastic and as one label indicated, you could either wash the items out and reuse them or you could just toss them in the trash after one use. To me, these items, which are surely popular, reflected a very disturbing attitude in this country. As I noted in an earlier blog about the disposable Tupperware-type containers that people are now just throwing away--since they've become so cheap--many seem to think that these baby items can be freely dumped in landfills for the sake of convenience. It seems like a huge waste of resources and energy, especially when you consider how these items can be recycled after they are reused numerous times. Why does our society advocate the trashing of our environment to save busy families time, when the time spent to wash out a cup is next to nothing? Given all of the diapers, wipes and other baby items already landing in the trash every day in this country, it seems like we should not be compounding the problem in this fashion. What kind of example are we setting for the next generation when we show them how easily everything can be thrown away, just because we are too lazy to wash something out?

I was watching Good Morning America and saw Victoria Principal being interviewed. I knew that she was an actress and had a billion-dollar skincare business, but I wasn't aware that she was planning on going into space on Virgin Atlantic's first civilian spacecraft. I didn't realize that Virgin Atlantic was sending people up into space in the next couple of years. I was thinking about Richard Branson's commitment to fighting global warming and wondered how a civilian space mission fits into that profile. It seems like a big waste of fossil fuels to send civilians up on a vacation-type excursion to outer space. If this trend continues, how can we say we are serious about combating global warming? Yet, if the money from this journey is being used for alternative-fuel type research or other strategies for minimizing the use of fossil fuels for aircraft, I suppose there might be some cancelling out of the bad with the good. I don't like to knock Richard Branson, because I think he is serious about helping the world do something about global warming, but I hope that he won't undermine his noble efforts by creating a whole new slew of rich space travelers who journey to space for nothing more than a vacation.

I was thinking about how mercury from coal-fired power plants can exacerbate global warming in an indirect fashion. I read an article in the paper over the weekend, that stated that people would conserve a lot of fossil fuels if they just ate locally grown food, rather than say, buying a banana grown in South America. The article also noted that if people ate fish from local waters rather than seeking the tilapia from a far away region, that has to be shipped via jet, there would be less greenhouse gases emitted. Yet, when you live somewhere like Indiana, the fish is so full of mercury that fish from far away has to be the norm. How can you eat the fish when there are advisories stating that they are so full of mercury that they cannot be eaten in more than very small quantities? So we are left with the compounded effect of coal-fired power plants polluting our waterways and causing us to look for fish in unpolluted and often far-reaching parts of the earth--resulting in the use of more fossil fuels. Perhaps we need to re-think our fish consumption in general and start taking fish oil supplements for the health benefits. Yet, is this really the way it has to be? If there was less pollution in local waters, people probably would opt for the fresh fish grown nearby, rather than something that had to be caught in the Pacific and shipped in overnight. We may never know though, if we don't start cracking down more seriously on our mercury emissions.

As I was reading an interesting article in Newsweek the other day about Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, I pondered what type of environmental advocate/alternative energy proponent I am. The article discussed the fact that Mr. Schwarzenegger is at times criticized for wanting the market to solve our environmental and energy problems, instead of preaching that people need to make sacrifices. A good example of his position is that he likes to drive a Hummer still, albeit one that runs on hydrogen. Some people feel that we should be pushing more for conservation, smaller vehicles, less energy use, etc., rather than touting that technology can fix our environmental and energy woes without much sacrifice on our end. I have to admit that I tend to lean more towards Mr. Schwarzenegger's attitude, namely because he deals with the reality of how people want to live and reconciles some of those practices with his desire to improve the environment and decrease our dependence on fossil fuels. He actually makes things happen by dealing with industry, rather than protesting industry and wanting all or nothing. He promotes conservation in many ways, but he accepts the fact that people may want big houses or cars. To deal with the latter, he encourages more technology in the areas of solar power and hydrogen, for instance. It's hard to knock his commitment to reducing the effects of global warming and lowering carbon dioxide emissions in his state, so his approach seems to have real teeth to it. I admire the way that he views the improvement of the environment and energy independence as real necessities that the market should be allowed to make happen. Just look at the way California companies are embracing environmental improvements and alternative energy projects. While Mr. Schwarzenegger may not be viewed as the traditional tree-hugger, he is obviously gifted at bringing the masses onboard his plan for the future on these issues. He is finding a way to bridge the gap between industry and preserving our planet, which is quite a feat indeed.

I was reading in today's Evansville Courier & Press that our local utility, Vectren, has purchased 30 megawatts of wind power from a wind farm in northern Indiana. At long last, customers here will be able to purchase wind power (at a rate of an additional $2.00-$3.00 per block of wind power). This service will be available as of next spring and will be an option for both residential and commercial customers.

My biggest fear is that the local consumer, who seems to want the cheapest electric rates available, will not back Vectren's efforts and that the whole effort will fall apart. I truly hope I am wrong, as I hope to purchase as much wind power as feasible from this plan. Although this purchase will come no where close to meeting all of the consumer's energy needs, I really applaud Vectren for taking this step and trying to give at least some of the customers--those who actually care about renewables--what they want. If the market is there, I am sure that Vectren will seek to expand the wind energy delivery plan. So it is really up to us as the consumers to show this utility that the people really do want something other than just coal, even if it costs a bit more.

I was reading in Business Week and Newsweek that China has paid a great price in an environmental sense for development. The Newsweek article dicussed the contrast between the Olympic facilities, which are state of the art, and the dire environmental picture outside the cities. The article noted that the rivers around Bejing are drying up and the country has resorted to shooting chemicals in the air to try to instigate rainfall. Along with the drought, the Business Week article noted that 70% of China's rivers and lakes are in "grim shape." In addition, 20% of the population lives in severely polluted areas. China is poised to become the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide by 2009.

These statistics are staggering when you think about them. One of the rivers in China used to be viewed as a destructive force, since it flooded areas with a vengeance. Now, it is almost completely dried up. Is it worth Olympic-stadium type of development, if there are no clean natural resources around such development? One notable point made in the Newsweek article was that the country will be hard-pressed to find enough water to fill up the Olympic pool for the upcoming games, given the water shortage. The price for rapid development is indeed very high.

I was reading in an old issue of Business Week that an electricity producer, AES, converted two 1950s era coal plants in Hungary to generate power from agricultural waste, such as sawdust and sunflower seed shells. The interesting part of this conversion was that steam turbines from the communist era were still being used to turn the generators. The article did not say how much power these plants produced, but it seemed from the article that the plants were fairly profitable. As I see all of the old coal plants in Indiana and Kentucky, it makes me wonder whether they could have a future life as energy producers via agriculural waste. Lord knows there is plenty of agricultural waste in this part of the country. Not too long ago I thought the only option for these archaic coal plants was to retrofit them to make them burn coal in a less polluting manner or retire them altogether. However, now I have new hope that some of these plants could actually become alternative energy producing sources. Let's hope that this becomes a feasible option down the road in the not too distant future, just as it has become a reality in Hungary.

I was reading an article online about mountaintop removal for coal mining. This article made me realize even more how awful this practice really is. According to the article, mountaintop removal leveled 20% of the peaks in the southern Appalachian mountains and buried 1,200 miles of stream in contamination. In addition, mountaintop removal is not good for local economies, as it has replaced 80% of the coalfield employment that was present in the 1950s.

The more disturbing part of mountaintop removal is the tsunami element, which I had never heard of before I read this article. One would think that places like West Virginia would be safe from a tsunami-type event, yet this is not so. The difference is that the tsunami we're talking about in coal mining country is a man-made disaster, involving coal sludge rather than water. Such was the case in 1972 when a slurry dam broke, resulting in 132 million gallons of black waste water into Buffalo Creek, West Virginia. 125 people were killed, 1,100 people were injured and 4,000 people were left homeless. I had never heard of this disaster and why is that? Is the coal industry avoiding these types of disasters from getting into the history books? In any event, it is time that we realize that practices like mountaintop removal may be easier than mining by hand, but they can destroy surrounding areas and that lives of residents who live down the mountain. Is this the way people should have to live, just because they decided years ago to reside in or near the Appalachian mountains? Since we can't replace mountains like these, don't they deserve a little more respect?

I was reading an article in Newsweek about how our use of vehicles has changed over the years. The article entitled, 'A Long & Winding Road' by Keith Naughton, notes that the average American consumes 33 meals per year in his car. In addition, one-quarter of restaurant meals are ordered by car now. This was a troubling statistic to me, since we know that cars running in drive-throughs, especially in the summertime, result in a lot of our ozone and particulate matter problems. Yet, we also have to think of the bigger picture of how much gasoline we are wasting by this practice. I will be the first to admit that I sometimes prefer the drive-thru when I have kids in the car. Yet, I've noticed many people in drive-thru lines at Starbucks or even the bank, simply because they don't feel like walking inside. Given that you can now pick up prescriptions, meals, coffee and perform banking and dry-cleaning while your engine is running, we may be hastening the wasteful erosion of our gasoline supply more and more these days. Although no one can argue with the convenience of these windows, perhaps it is time for people to actually walk inside on occasion, to get what they need. This would help with the pollution and the needless waste of gasoline while idling in line.

I was reading an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association about overzealous alternative fuel producers. In Colorado, a homeowner who was making biodiesel in his home "forgot to turn off the tank's heating element and left for the weekend." The result was that the tank overheated and caused a fire. Even worse, the materials used for the biodiesel--cooking oil, glycerin, sodium hydroxide, sulfuric and phosphoric acid--seeped into the ground during the fire. A HazMat team had to respond to the fire, due to the hazardous materials.

The lesson of this article is that people who want biodiesel should buy it from a licensed source, rather than trying to produce it at home. It sounds great in theory for a person to try to avoid using gasoline in favor of a renewable form of fuel. Yet, it is important to keep in mind that even biodiesel involves the use of hazardous materials that should not be handled by a novice. Hopefully, the alternative energy market will not be an impetus for people to try to take biodiesel production into their own hands, without having appropriate education and training. Otherwise, more residential areas could be susceptible to hazardous material situations like the one in Colorado.

As I was traveling around Indianapolis last week, I had the same thought I often have when I go to other cities, like Chicago or New York. When I lived in Chicago, I always took pride in the fact that I could see the skyline from my window at night and admire the lights coming from all of the buildings. Yet, now I seem to have a different take on this. To me, it seems incredibly wasteful to have lights on buildings 24/7, when no one is on these floors. Given that the lights run all day long, there is certainly already a lot of energy being consumed. Why is it then, that buildings have to have all of these lights on, all night long? Is it a security measure, or is it to make the building more noticeable and more attractive to those around it? If it were for security only, couldn't there be a more efficient way to use lighting, such that fewer lights would be on, such as every other floor or bottom floors and top floors only? If it is for aesthetics, can't we get over this attitude that seeing lights on all night long in a city is a good thing? After all, there are power plants running 24/7 as well, to produce all of this electricity, and they are not nearly as attractive to look at. Why can't solar lighting be improved, such that it could illuminate parts of skyscrapers once the sun goes down?

In my mind, if we want to conserve energy, we need to start by eliminating some of the practices that we continue to do in such a big way--like lighting every office building floor at all hours of the night. When you think about the fact that people in Baghdad now have less than one hour of electricity every day at their disposal, it makes you wonder why we think we can't survive without being able to admire a skyline in the evening. Maybe it looks great to those in the cities, but is this enough reason to continue with this practice?