As has been reported the Energy Star Program has some fraud going on.
http://www.sears.com/shc/s/nb_10153_12605_NB_showPledge?adCell=W4
:}
More tomorrow.
:}
As has been reported the Energy Star Program has some fraud going on.
http://www.sears.com/shc/s/nb_10153_12605_NB_showPledge?adCell=W4
:}
More tomorrow.
:}
If this country paid the real price for coal instead of socializing the costs (ie. transferring the cost to the general public) it would be too expensive to burn. If the Coal Industry had to pay the real cost of drilling the holes (tax free zones), making the holes safe (complying with regulations instead of being lightly fined), freeing the coal of its nasty properties (passed onto the consumers of coal), safely disposing of those associated wastes (see articles below) and pay part of the costs of the effects of their uses on the environment (passed on to the end users and consumers) then we would never even think about using that stuff. But they get passes on all of that and they put the public at risk. Oh and they want to put in the levies too.
What the activists say:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Illinois_and_coal
Coal production is a major part of the Illinois economy. In 2004, the state produced over 31 million short tons of coal worth an estimated $819 million dollars, which ranked it 9th in the nation in coal production.[1] Coal deposits underly 37,000 square miles of Illinois, about two thirds the entire state. Recoverable coal reserves are estimated to total 30 billion tons, accounting for almost one-eighth of the nation’s total coal reserves and one-fourth of bituminous coal reserves.[2] In comparison to western coal, Illinois coal is high in sulfur, and even when cleaned the sulfur content averages 2 to 3 percent by weight.[3]
The state consumed over 54 million short tons of coal for electrical power in 2004,[1] producing approximately 48 percent of the electricity generated in Illinois. The state’s average retail price of electricity is 7.07 cents per kilowatt hour, the 20th lowest rate in the nation[4] In 2003, Illinois emitted 230 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, ranking it 7th in the nation overall.[5]
In a major survey article for the Illinois Times on the coal fight in the state, Peter Downs wrote:[6]
:}
What the Newspaper reports:
Coal mining companies are supposed to clean up after themselves, and the government is supposed to ensure groundwater is pure.
But environmental activists fear that mining companies in central and southern Illinois may poison aquifers by injecting potentially dangerous pollutants into the ground with inadequate review by regulators and no notice to the public.
The state has already allowed the practice at the Crown Mine No. 3 near Girard, and the owner of the Shay No. 1 Mine near Carlinville, which closed in 2007 but reopened last year, has applied for permission. Activists fear this is just the beginning as coal companies develop new mines and restart old ones.
The waste is a byproduct of washing coal. The slurry that results can contain arsenic, heavy metals and other pollutants. The website of the state Office of Mines and Minerals says the material “can be potentially acid-forming and/or toxic.”
The danger is serious enough that the practice of injecting coal slurry into the ground has been curtailed in West Virginia, where more than 100 lawsuits are pending by residents who blame coal companies for poisoning wells.
:}
http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/sns-bc-il–levees-coalash,0,5870784.story
ST. LOUIS (AP) — A federal plan to use ash waste from coal-fired power plants to shore up some Mississippi River levees drew objections Thursday from environmentalists who are worried that toxins in the ash might seep into the river and public water systems it serves.
The Sierra Club and other nature groups lined up against the Army Corps of Engineers’ plan, worrying during a public hearing that the use of coal or fly ash questionably could extend later to levees along other inland rivers and perpetuate coal burning, widely believed to contribute to global warming.
“If this should turn out to be toxic (after it’s been injected into a levee’s weak spots), how do we get it back out?” Tom Ball, a member of the Sierra Club and Missouri Stream Team, pressed during the 90-minute hearing that drew about 50 people, including electric utility representatives
“This fly ash is hazardous waste, regardless of what you call it,” added Catherine Edmiston, an environmentalist heading an Illinois group opposing longwall mining. “I am against putting it against a major river. I think we need to think about this.”
Corps officials called the injection of a slurry of water, coal ash and lime into 25 miles of slide-prone levees in 200-mile stretch of the river from Alton, Ill., near St. Louis to southern Illinois’ tip the cheapest, longest-lasting fix among several options it weighed.
Yet the corps pledged not to move hastily, calling any decision months away and pressing that the search for the cheapest fix for taxpayers won’t trump public safety. For now, the corps says, the ash-slurry plan appears be
:}
http://www.thetelegraph.com/articles/ash-42552-corps-louis.html
ST. LOUIS (AP) – The Army Corps of Engineers wants to use ash cast off from coal-fired electrical generation to shore up dozens of miles of Mississippi River levees, drawing fire from environmentalists worried that heavy metals from the filler might make their way into the river.
The corps announced the plan last month, touting the injection of a slurry of water, coal ash and lime into 25 miles of slide-prone levees in 200-mile stretch of the river from Alton, Ill., near St. Louis to tiny Gale on southern Illinois’ tip as the cheapest, longest-lasting fix among several options it weighed.
A public hearing on the matter, scheduled Thursday in St. Louis, is certain to elicit questions from environmentalists who consider the use of coal ash – also known as fly ash – a bad idea despite corps assurances that it has been used trouble-free on levees near Memphis for more than a decade.
:}
More Tomorrow
:}
Paris — If you’re looking for a comprehensive resource for renewable energy installation figures, look no further: The Renewables Global Status report was released last week, and it provides a great snapshot of where and how renewables are being developed around the world.
The report was released by the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, also known as REN21, and it provides an upbeat picture for renewables, despite the murky outlook for the global economy.
The report was originally released in 2005. Since then, solar PV has grown by 60 percent annually, wind by 27 percent, solar hot water by 19 percent, according to the authors. In 2009, renewables made up more than half of investment in global power generation. And that’s with depressed oil and gas prices, lenders being very choosy about projects and individual consumers facing their own financial problems. Total investment in the industry was about $150 billion last year.
Other than the stellar investment figures during a slow year for most other industries, there’s not much surprising in the 2009 report. The industry continues to move along – increasingly in developing countries – driven largely by robust public policy. Where policy lacks, investment does too.
Perhaps the most important trend is the role of China in the global renewable energy market. According to the report, the country produces about 40 precent of solar PV panels, 30 percent of wind turbines and 77 percent of solar hot water systems globally. The Chinese presence will impact investment decisions of companies as they work to compete with “The China Price,” and decide where to locate manufacturing facilities.
Many organizations like the International Energy Agency and the Energy Information Administration put together yearly figures on renewables. But none do it quite as comprehensively and clearly as the REN21 folks do. It’s worth keeping around as a go-to resource for figures on the industry.
Here are some other highlights taken straight from the report about the various renewables sectors:
:}
More tomorrow.
:}
http://www.newenergymovement.org/index.php
Ere many generations pass, our machinery will
be driven by power obtainable at any point in the
universe. It is a mere question of time when men
will succeed in attaching their machinery to the
very wheelwork of nature.
—Nikola Tesla
The World We Envision
Clean, safe, abundant, inexpensive energy for all… stabilized climate… clean and healthy water, food, and air for all… beautiful blue skies over our cities… low-impact, sustainable forestry and agriculture… beautiful landscapes unspoiled by wires and smokestacks… recycling of virtually all wastes… rivers running
free and natural… thriving sustainable local economies… living standards and education rates increasing… birth rates declining…
a global culture of sharing… unleashed human creativity…
a new and lasting era of world peace…
With a revolution in energy as the foundation of renewed and loving stewardship of our planet, we can transform our world into a beautiful and healthy home full of promise, opportunity, abundance, and peace for all of humanity.
Our Mission
The New Energy Movement acts to promote the rapid widespread deployment of advanced, clean, and sustainable energy sources across our imperiled planet. This transformation in the way our civilization generates and uses energy provides the best physical means to protect the biosphere, remediate ecological damage, and enhance the health and well-being of the global human family.
The New Energy Movement’s major priority is to educate the public, policymakers, and investors about the need to support research, development, and use of zero-point energy, magnetic generators, advanced hydrogen processes, and other little-known powerful energy technologies now emerging from inventors and scientists all over the world…
The Challenges
Critical and unprecedented challenges now face our civilization, inflicting a terrible toll on our people, our companion species, and the planet itself. If not reversed soon, they threaten to end human life on Earth.
Without a revolution in energy, we will not be able to act with the speed and scope demanded by the climate change emergency we face. With this revolution we will be able to create sustainable and just economic development required for world peace.
______________________________________________
Our survival will require
a vast and dramatic shift
in how human civilization
generates and uses energy.
______________________________________________
Read complete Mission Statement
:}
More tomorrow
:}
I keep telling people that crude oil is really really toxic. No one really listens.
I know this is not centered and you can not read all the text. Tough. Go to our BB Refrigerator Magnets and click on Louisiana Environmental Action Network to read the whole thing. Or better yet, go to their website and read the original if you are really interested…I think you get the drift from what you can see.
|
||||||||
:}
More tomorrow.
:}
After a very disastrous environmental year, I have the summer doldrums. So I may just randomly post short things for awhile and as Mark Twain used to say, “let my tanks fill up”.
press release
July 8, 2010, 10:14 a.m. EDT · Recommend · Post:
BOISE, Idaho, Jul 8, 2010 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) — Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. (OTCQB:AEHI) today announced its subsidiary Energy Neutral(TM) has been nominated for the Idaho Smart Growth award. The award sets the company apart from others in its construction techniques and use of renewable energy to create livable environments that maintain and enhance the idea of sustainable communities.
“This is a great honor to be publicly recognized for the work we’ve been doing with AEHI and Energy Neutral(TM). The very reason we started Energy Neutral(TM) was to show that proper planning and reliable use of renewable energy sources would result in a better, more productive building process–one that would create sustainability at an affordable price. In doing so, we’ve proven that anyone can take part in the process of making our communities cleaner and healthier,” said Don Gillispie, AEHI CEO.
“Energy Neutral(TM) unveiled its first model home in March 2010, which has consistently demonstrated it can create more power than it actually uses. In addition to bringing together state of the art technologies at low cost for our Energy Neutral(TM) homes, we have expertise in siting locations that provide added energy saving benefits. This home’s convenient location, close to shopping areas, public transportation, and the freeway, will aid in reducing vehicle emissions. The eventual owners will have more opportunities to leave their car at home when they go to work, stores, or recreation.”
“The Energy Neutral(TM) home is about being smarter stewards of the communities and environment we live in. It is the very reason we’ve been approached by builders from across the nation who are now looking to franchise with Energy Neutral(TM). We are able to provide them with an entirely new way to look at new home and commercial construction and I am hopeful this will be a strong contributor to the real estate market as more business and home owners come to recognize the Energy Neutral(TM) vision,” said Gillispie.
:}
I know…I know…It’s Idaho. But if the white supremacist fundamentalists get it…Well maybe everyone will.
By 2015, if General Electric has their way, all our homes will be running on smart grids with mini-turbines and solar panels to produce electricity, consuming zero net energy in the process.
GE says that their smart energy system, dubbed the Net Zero Home project, will center around a $250 central management hub that will allow all of a home’s networked appliances and on-site power-producing equipment talk to each other, as well as to the smart grid outside the home..
GE’s push comes at a time when power conservation is valued more than ever, and smart energy innovations are pouring in by the day.
The goal here is to make people more conscious of how much power they’re using and how often they’re doing it. By enabling a home’s appliances to scale down their performance or power state during peak hours, cities will not only conserve energy, but consumers will save money.
:}
As usual California is in the lead.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/19/business/fi-puc19
California energy regulators Thursday adopted a target that all homes built after 2020 produce at least as much energy as they consume to reduce demand for electricity and cut pollution tied to power generation.
The California Public Utilities Commission approved the guideline at a meeting in San Francisco. Homes would meet the goal through such measures as advanced insulation and solar power systems.
:}
There’s always more tomorrow
:}
Everybody wants to be green but nobody wants tell you what that means exactly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset
A carbon offset is a financial instrument aimed at a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon offsets are measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e) and may represent six primary categories of greenhouse gases.[1] One carbon offset represents the reduction of one metric ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases.
There are two markets for carbon offsets. In the larger, compliance market, companies, governments, or other entities buy carbon offsets in order to comply with caps on the total amount of carbon dioxide they are allowed to emit. In 2006, about $5.5 billion of carbon offsets were purchased in the compliance market, representing about 1.6 billion metric tons of CO2e reductions.[2]
In the much smaller, voluntary market, individuals, companies, or governments purchase carbon offsets to mitigate their own greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, electricity use, and other sources. For example, an individual might purchase carbon offsets to compensate for the greenhouse gas emissions caused by personal air travel. Many companies (see list[3]) offer carbon offsets as an up-sell during the sales process so that customers can mitigate the emissions related with their product or service purchase (such as offsetting emissions related to a vacation flight, car rental, hotel stay, consumer good, etc.). In 2008, about $705 million of carbon offsets were purchased in the voluntary market, representing about 123.4 million metric tons of CO2e reductions.[4]
Offsets are typically achieved through financial support of projects that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases in the short- or long-term. The most common project type is renewable energy, such as wind farms, biomass energy, or hydroelectric dams. Others include energy efficiency projects, the destruction of industrial pollutants or agricultural byproducts, destruction of landfill methane, and forestry projects.[5] Some of the most popular carbon offset projects from a corporate perspective are energy efficiency and wind turbine projects.[6]
:}
http://ezinearticles.com/?Carbon-Neutral—What-Does-It-Mean?&id=339090
Recently, there have been a lot of environmental buzzwords floating around. It can be difficult to find a clear definition. I’ll explain what the term “carbon neutral” means, and why it’s important.
You might think that carbon neutral simply means that something does not release any carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is true to an extent, however it is too simple a definition. It is possible to release CO2 into the atmosphere and still be carbon neutral, so long it is balanced by a CO2 reduction elsewhere.
Biofuels are carbon neutral, even though burning them releases CO2. How can this be? Well, the carbon in the biofuel comes from photosynthesis, where CO2 is captured from the atmosphere by a plant and turned into glucose. The glucose can then be turned into more complicated molecules such as sugars, starches, oils and proteins. Sugars and starches can easily be converted into bioethanol, while oils can be converted into biodiesel. Carbon is removed from the atmosphere, stored in plants for a few months, then released when the biofuel is burned. For every gram of CO2 released by burning a biofuel, there was a gram removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis just a few months ago. This perfect balance is why biofuels are carbon neutral.
Alternatively, the term carbon neutral can be used to describe energy that does not cause the release of any CO2 at all. For instance, solar cells, wind turbines and hydroelectric turbines generate electricity without releasing CO2. Nuclear power does not release CO2 during the generation process either.
There is a problem with this, however. Currently, virtually all forms of carbon neutral energy actually involve the burning of fossil fuels. The crops for biofuels are harvested using machinery that burns fossil diesel. This is because fossil fuels are a great deal cheaper than biofuels. Some ways of producing biofuels are controversial because so much fossil fuel has to be used in the production process. Some sources of bioethanol are in this grey area. Solar cells, wind and hydroelectric turbines are all produced and transported using fossil fuels to some extent. The technology exists to make these things truly carbon neutral, but it is hopelessly uneconomic at this time. Nuclear power involves the burning of fossil fuels in the mining and transport of uranium, the building of power stations, and the disposal of waste. When uranium becomes scarce, mining it will consume even more fossil fuels:}
:}
http://www.leonardo-energy.org/meaning-zero
By Bruno De Wachter / Published on Wed, 2010-05-05 05:30
You would think that no word has a more unambiguous meaning than ‘zero’: nothing is nothing. Not so in today’s world of green building. Labels like ‘zero energy building’, ‘nearly zero energy building’, and ‘zero carbon building’ are frequently used, but lack any standardised or official definition. The same can be said of the expression ‘bâtiment à énergie positive’ that is used in France.
‘Zero energy’ might play well commercially, but it is a clumsy label from a scientific point of view. No house or building can be built and maintained without energy. Strictly speaking, even manpower should be considered energy, and it brings along carbon emissions via food production and by the simple act of breathing. This illustrates that the meaning of ‘zero’ depends entirely upon where you draw the system’s boundaries.
The most narrow and also the most deceptive definition is to take only the electricity consumption of the building into account. The annual electricity production of the PV cells on the roof equals the annual electricity consumption of the building, and hey presto, you have a zero energy building. Who cares about the natural gas boiler in the basement?
:}
Nearly zero..ha..haha…more tomorrow.
:}
To Think At One Time: I did not even think I would get requests for guest posts. Then: I questioned whether to allow guest posts. Now I am getting a request about every month for someone to share this space…And you know what I love it.
It’s not necessary to become a nerd to find out how wind power works
Wind is the result of the uneven heating of the Earth by the sun and the fact that temperatures will always be attempting to reach an equilibrium (heat is always moving to a cooler area). With the rising price of energy and the damage to the environment from classic fuels, it is increasingly equitable to harvest this renewable resource.
The benefits of wind energy are that it’s virtually free (after you purchase the equipment) and there’s no pollution. The disadvantages include the fact it is not a constant source (the speed varies and many times it is insufficient to make electricity) and it typically requires about one acre of land.
How Wind Energy Works
The volume of power that can be found varies by wind speed. The amount available is named it’s power density which is measured in watts per square meter. Due to this, the U.S. Department of Energy has separated wind energy into classes from 1 to 7. The typical wind speed for class 1 is 9.8 mph or less while the average for a class 7 is 21.1 or more. For effective power production, class 2 winds (11.5 mph average speed) are usually required.
In general, wind speeds increase as you get higher above the Earth. Due to this, the typical wind mill comes with a tower no less than 30 feet above obstructions. That there are two basic different types of towers employed for residential wind power systems (free standing and guyed). Free standing towers are self supporting and are usually heavier which means they take special equipment (cranes) to erect them. Guyed towers are supported on a concrete base and anchored by wires for support. They typically are not as heavy and most manufacturer’s produce tilt down models which may be easily raised and lowered for maintenance.
The kinetic (moving energy) from the winds is harnessed by a device called a turbine. This turbine contains airfoils (blades) that capture the energy of the wind and use it to turn the shaft of an alternator (like you have on a car only bigger).
There are two basic types of blades (drag style and lifting style). We all have seen pictures of old-fashioned windmills with the large flat blades which are an example of the drag style of airfoil. Lifting style blades are twisted instead of flat and resemble the propellor of a small airplane.
A turbine is classified as to whether it is built to be installed with the rotor in a horizontal or vertical position and whether the wind strikes the blades or the tower first. A vertical turbine typically requires less land for it’s installation and is a better option for the more urban areas of the world. An upwind turbine is designed for the wind to impact the airfoils before it does the tower.
http://www.residentialwindturbines.org/residential-wind-turbine.jpg
These units ordinarily have a tail on the turbine which is needed to keep the unit pointed into the wind. A downwind turbine doesn’t need a tail as the wind acting on the blades tends to maintain it oriented properly.
These turbine systems would be damaged if they were to be permitted to turn at excessive speeds. Therefore, units will need to have automatic over-speed governing systems. Some systems use electrical braking systems although some use mechanical type brakes.
The output electricity from the alternator is sent to a controller which conditions it for use in the home. The use of residential wind power systems requires the home to either remain linked with the utility grid or store electricity in a battery for use when the wind doesn’t blow sufficiently.
When the home is tied to the grid, the surplus electricity that is produced by the residential wind power system can be sold to the utility company to lower and sometimes even eliminate your electric bill. During times with not enough wind, the home is supplied power from the utility company.
http://www.residentialwindturbines.org/wind-scheme-grid-tied.gif
The Cost of Wind Energy
Small residential wind power turbines can be an attractive alternative, or addition, to those people needing over 100-200 watts of power for their home, business, or remote facility. Unlike PV’s, which stay at basically the same cost per watt independent of array size, wind turbines get more affordable with increasing system size. At the 50 watt size level, for instance, a small residential power turbine would cost about $8.00/watt in comparison to approximately $6.00/watt for a PV module.
This is the reason, all things being equal, Photo voltaic is less expensive for very small loads. As the system size gets larger, however, this “rule-of-thumb” reverses itself.
At 300 watts the wind generator costs are down to $2.50/watt, while the PV costs are still at $6.00/watt. For a 1,500 watt wind system the cost is down to $2.00/watt and at 10,000 watts the price of a wind generator (excluding electronics) is down to $1.50/watt.
The author – Mary Jones writes for the
http://www.residentialwindturbines.org/”>residential wind generators
website, her personal hobby blog centered on ways to reduce CO2 and lower energy costs using alternative power sources.
If you wish to read my complete Bio:
http://www.residentialwindturbines.org/about
:}
More tomorrow
:}
http://www.2people.org/pub/page/show/article/10596
The British government has recently opened the comment period on a major plan to revise the building code. The revisions phase in regulations ensuring that all new homes are built carbon-neutral by 2016. Other elements of the plan include:
:}
http://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/dcs_first_carbon_neutral_home_hits_the_market/1652
Back in September, we reported that DC’s first carbon neutral home was being built in Capitol Hill. Yesterday, the much-anticipated property hit the market.
The three-bedroom, 3.5-bath home at 19 4th Street NE (map) was gutted and renovated by GreenSpur, Inc., a DC-based building and design firm that uses sustainability techniques to deliver homes that are energy efficient as well as cost effective.
After overcoming a labyrinth of regulatory hurdles and permitting nightmares given the property’s location four blocks from the Capitol, GreenSpur enlarged the home (from 1,000 to 2,100 square feet), hand dug the basement and, in keeping with their mission statement, made it completely green but priced comparably to other (non-carbon neutral) homes in the area.
:}
Then there is this. Wiki makes a political statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_neutrality
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (May 2010) |
Carbon neutrality, or having a net zero carbon footprint, refers to achieving net zero carbon emissions by balancing a measured amount of carbon released with an equivalent amount sequestered or offset, or buying enough carbon credits to make up the difference. It is used in the context of carbon dioxide releasing processes, associated with transportation, energy production and industrial processes.
The carbon neutral concept may be extended to include other greenhouse gases (GHG) measured in terms of their carbon dioxide equivalence—the impact a GHG has on the atmosphere expressed in the equivalent amount of CO2. The term climate neutral is used to reflect the fact that it is not just carbon dioxide (CO2), that is driving climate change, even if it is the most abundant, but also encompasses other greenhouse gases regulated by the Kyoto Protocol, namely: methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). Both terms are used interchangeably throughout this article.
Best practice for organizations and individuals seeking carbon neutral status entails reducing and/or avoiding carbon emissions first so that only unavoidable emissions are offset. The term has two common uses:
:}
Climate neutral. Who is zooming who here. Did somebody just make up a phrase to create the new denier strawman. Yah think.
:}
Energy Neutral is different from Carbon Neutral. Energy Neutral means it produces as much energy as it consumes. Carbon Neutral takes into account all carbon used to make the place and its usage.
http://www.jetsongreen.com/2008/02/lighthouse-uks.html
In England, a handful of efficient demonstration homes have been built on the grounds of the Building Research Establishment Ltd, including “The Lighthouse,” which is the first net zero carbon house in the UK. The house is also the first to attain level six in the Code for Sustainable Homes, which indicates that it is carbon neutral. The two-bedroom house is only 93.3 square meters (barely over 1000 sq. ft.) in a 2-1/2 story building. The building has solar panels and evacuated solar tubes on its roof, as well as making use of passive measures with ventilation chimneys. It also incorporates rainwater catchment as part of the building design.
The materials used include highly insulated, airtight building fabric which has been designed to provide generous daylight levels and includes effective solar control, together with integrated building services based around a platform of renewable and sustainable technologies. These include water efficiency techniques, renewable energy technologies, passive cooling and ventilation, as well as mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR).
:}
http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/11/25/how-to-build-a-carbon-neutral-home/
Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.
:}
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/08/japans-carbon-neutral-hom_n_111519.html
Wall Street Journal:
As leaders of the world’s most powerful nations discuss climate change at the Group of Eight summit in northern Japan, Japan’s big tech companies are displaying some of their most cutting-edge solutions in a nearby “zero emissions house.”
The single-story, 2,152-square-foot house generates all the energy required for a family of four, therefore eliminating carbon-dioxide emissions, according to the Japanese government. Products inside, many already on sale in Japan, include a washer that requires no water and an air conditioner that senses where people are in a room and automatically sends cool air in their direction rather than cooling empty space. Yet the eco-friendly products also carry a steeper price tag than traditional appliances.
The house uses a wind-turbine generator and a photovoltaic generation system, which directly converts light into electricity, to produce about 15 kilowatts of energy a day, nearly five times the amount used by a regular household. The government has presented the house as one of its contributions toward helping the world cut greenhouse emissions in half by 2050.
:}
More tomorrow.
:}