EnvironmentalChemistry.com
Environmental, Chemistry & Hazardous Materials News, Careers & Resources

Editor's Blog

This is the official blog for EnvironmentalChemistry.com, which provides chemistry, environmental and hazardous materials news, information & resources.

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

Using cool nights for a cooler home during the day at no cost

By Kenneth Barbalace

In cooler climates like here in Maine, even as we swelter through hot summer days we still typically enjoy cooler, more comfortable nights. Even when temperatures push above 90°F (32°C) nights can drop to around 70°F (21°C) at night. This temperature swing provides for a cheap and easy means of helping to keep a home cooler on hot days without the need for air conditioning.

The strategy could be summed up with four words: "which side is cooler." At night when the temperatures drop below indoor temperatures, open all your home's windows to allow in this cooler air. In the morning before work, and/or before the outside temperatures rise above indoor temperatures close all the windows and in unused rooms, close the blinds. Closing the windows will keep the hot air out and closing the blinds will reduce solar heat gain.

The "which side is cooler" tactic will be particularly effective if your home has been weatherized to reduce drafts, has plenty of insulation in the attic and has proper attic venting. The attic insulation and venting is particularly important as they will reduce heat transfer from attic to the living space and reduce attic heat gain respectively.

Over the past couple of weeks we have been routinely experiencing outdoor temperatures over 90°F (32°C) by mid morning. Despite this, but deploying the tactic of opening windows at night and closing them in the day, we've been able to keep our home's indoor temperatures below 80°F (27°C). It may still be warmer than we prefer inside, but it is not uncomfortably hot and we haven't felt a desperate desire to go buy an air conditioner.

Obviously this tactic won't work if brutally hot days are followed by sweltering hot nights. For those climates with cooler night time temperatures, however, this could tremendously reduce/eliminate cooling bills while providing for a comfortable home even on really hot days. Best of all, there is no cost to deploy this home cooling strategy.

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Replacing windows & doors usually isn't best way to save energy

By Kenneth Barbalace

With all the home energy efficiency tax credits being offered up to home owners, I have observed a predictable uptick in advertising related to home weatherization goods and services. Not surprisingly, much of this advertising is targeted towards getting consumers to buy new energy efficient doors and windows. The thing is is that for most consumers replacing doors and windows WILL NOT result in the best possible return on investment (ROI) in regards to cost vs. energy savings. For most consumers, the best possible ROI on the money they spend on home weatherization is normally to add a significant amount of insulation to their attics (up to R-50 or 15" of fiberglass/cellulous) and sealing drafts in the home (e.g. simply adding weather stripping to doors/windows, caulking door/window trim, and sealing other sources of air leaks).

Window and door sellers go all out to sell replacing windows and doors with new energy efficient ones, but it must be understood that in the most extreme cases, going from a single pane of glass to a triple pane Low-E II window only takes that window from an R-1 to an R-3.5 in a best case scenario.

The best time to install energy efficient windows and doors is either when a house is first being built OR when the existing windows/doors need to be replaced because they have reached the end of their useful service life (e.g. 30+ years old).

Unless the windows are really old and can't be effectively sealed, the most cost effective means of dealing with inefficient windows is to caulk and weather strip the windows and maybe add the clear heat shrink plastic window weatherization film over windows in the late fall. These are cheap fixes and when properly done will provide just as much energy savings as replacing the windows, at a fraction of the cost.

We recently had an energy audit conducted on our home and did a lot of weatherization work on it. In our case, upgrading our windows to Low-E energy efficient windows would have had a return of investment of 1.4% and would have taken 72+ years to pay themselves back. The best use of our money was to insulate the attic and our rim joists and reducing air heat loss (sealing wall/ceiling joints, putting gaskets behind electrical wall plates, sealing window/door trim, etc.). Our energy audit projected a ROI 34.8% with a payback of 2.9 years on properly insulating our attic, and a ROI of 29.5% with a payback of 3.4 years for reducing air heat loss. Quite simply, adding proper insulation and air sealing our house will have saved us enough money in energy costs within the next 5-7 years to actually pay for replacing our windows and doors where as replacing our windows and doors will never save enough money in our life time to pay for the other weatherization work even though the costs would have been similar.

Don't be fooled by advertising, when it comes to weatherizing your home and reducing your energy costs. Do your homework and get an energy audit before undertaking any projects to make sure the money you spend will truly save you the most possible money on energy costs. If your primary reason for wanting to replace your windows and/or doors is to save energy, take care of other weatherization projects first.

Thursday, March 04, 2010

Could Maine be Energy Self Sufficient in Ten Years?

By Kenneth Barbalace

Yesterday I attended a meet and greet for Pat McGowan who is one of seven candidates who are running for the Democratic nomination to be the next Governor of Maine. One of his key agenda items is to continue Maine on its path to energy self sufficiency within ten years. This would be accomplished through harnessing a diverse array of renewable energy sources.

McGowan's stated that this is totally achievable as within about a year Maine could have a maximum capacity of 400 megawatts of electricity from wind energy. This would be equivalent to almost half the power capacity of the 900 megawatt Maine Yankee nuclear power plant when it was operational. This would be enough electricity to power somewhere around 150,000 homes.

Based on data I compiled from the Natural Resources Council of Maine website, Maine currently produces a maximum of 175 megawatts of wind power, with an additional 202.5 megawatts under construction and up to 229.5 megawatts currently in the permit application process, with even more projects being studied. All told, the short range maximum wind generating capacity either currently operational, under construction or undergoing permitting is over 600 megawatts or around 1.6 billion kilowatt hours per year of electricity. This would be enough electricity to power the equivalent of nearly 250,000 Maine homes. Assuming permitting went reasonably smoothly all of this power generating capability could be online within a couple of years, with more proposed wind farms still in the works.

From permitting application to fully operational Maine will have brought online 2/3 the electrical generating capacity of the now decommissioned Maine Yankee Nuclear power plant. This will have happened in a fraction of the time it would take to permit and build a modern nuclear power plant for a fraction of the cost and none of the long term risk. Furthermore, the wind farm projects are spread out across the state bringing desperately needed local jobs to communities across the state. Best of all, this will be zero CO2, clean, renewable energy with none of the hazardous waste or pollution that is produced by nuclear or fossil fuel based power plants.

Could Maine really become energy independent within ten years? Well, at least from a power generation standpoint, the answer is yes, this is a very achievable goal. Maine won't be able to do it on wind power alone, but if wind generation capacity is coupled with solar, hydro and tidal energy projects we could become the first state in the U.S. to have a 100% renewable energy grid. We will, however, still need to work really hard to reduce our dependence on oil, especially when it comes to heating our homes.

Maine Wind Farms and Production Capacity

Source: Natural Resources Council of Maine.
Last updated: 3/4/2010

LocationOwner OperatorMax Capacity (MW)Number of TurbineskWh/yr Produced/ ProjectedPhase (year)Equivalent # of Maine homes supplied
LiveBeing BuiltProposedLivePermit ApprovedPermit Applied For
Mars Hill, AroostookFirst Wind42.028200725,000
Stetson Ridge, Washington CountyFirst Wind57.038169,269,000200923,500
Beaver Ridge, Freedom, Waldo CountyPatriot Renewables, LLC4.5312,500,00020082,000
Kibby & Skinner Townships Franklin CountyTransCanada66.066.043357,000,000200950,000
OakfieldFirst Wind51.034135,000,000201020,000
Lincoln, Lee, Winn, Burlington & Mattawamkeag, Penobscot CountyFirst Wind60.040168,000,000200923,500
Stewart-Bald Mountains and Briggs-Burnt Hill, Highland Plantation, Somerset CountyIndependence Wind130.548360,000,000200948,000
Jimmey and Owl Mountains, Washington CountyFirst Wind25.51781,468,000200911,500
Vinalhaven, Knox CountyFox Islands Wind, LLC4.5311,600,0001,500
Spruce Mountain, Woodstock, Oxford CountyPatriot Renewables, LLC20.01155,000,00020108,500
Saddleback Ridge, Carthage, Franklin CountyPatriot Renewables, LLC34.519106,000,000201016,500
Sisk Mountain, Kibby and Chain of Ponds Townships, Franklin CountyTransCanada45.015120,000,000200917,000
Totals174.0202.5229.52991,575,837,000247,000

Related Articles

  • CO2 Pollution and Global Warming: When does carbon dioxide become a pollutant?
    Why is carbon dioxide, a life sustaining, compound considered pollution and how do scientists know that humans are responsible for the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and global warming?
  • Renewable Energy, National Security and Social Justice
    Too often the discussion of renewable energy development focuses on climate change (aka global warming) to the exclusion of other equally important environmental, national security and social justice concerns. While yes, climate change is a serious concern, we need to invest in and not unduly burden the development of renewable energies like wind and solar energies for many other reasons.
  • Giving environmentalism a bad name; the death of good sense
    Many people try to wrap their arguments and obstructionism against projects like wind farms in environmental terms when the real reason for their opposition is NIMBY (not in my back yard). They simply don't want their aesthetic sensibilities offended by the infrastructure required to sustain our civilization.
  • Environmental Justice and the NIMBY Principle
    In whose backyard does our hazardous waste end up?

Monday, October 19, 2009

Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid Debuts at Frankfurt Motor Show

By Kenneth Barbalace
At the Frankfurt Motor Show, Toyota unveiled a plug-in hybrid version of its popular Toyota Prius. This concept car is based on the third generation Prius and uses first generation lithium-ion batteries. Read more at http://behindthewheelnews.toyota.com/?id=252

Thursday, October 08, 2009

Glen Beck, H1N1 Vaccine, Ethyle Mercury & Dangerously Irresponsible Fear Mongering

By Kenneth Barbalace
Politically motivated fear mongering has become a routine part of the partisan discourse with some media outlets. This is an unfortunate part of the current political reality. There are occasions, however, when this fear mongering goes far beyond being just political hatchet jobs and become a true public menace. Tonight FOX News' Glen Beck crossed that line and became a true public health menace.

I don't have cable or satellite TV specifically because I don't want to in any shape form or fashion help enable or support the cable news channels and what they try to pass off as news. As such I didn't see Glen Beck's program tonight, however, I did get the following email from one of his viewers this evening:

I am a concerned citizen trying to find information on some chemical compounds to make a more informed decisions.

I hope you can point me in the right direction or give me some information as I am not a scientist, but want some scientific facts, and possibly to see written results of tests. I want my family to be safe, but I am also concerned about toxins .

I was watching Glenn Beck tonight, and was told that thimerosal was in the H1N1 shots, which said contains Ethyl Mercury in high amounts, and the past reports I have researched said that the safe doses for this chemical was 0.1kg and that current shots contained 237MG. How much difference is this?

Does this constitute poison, or toxicity build up, and if its stored in the brain, does your body ever rid the chemicals of ethyl mercury or thimerosal?

Also can you tell me where to find MSDS on Ethyl Mercury, and facts about over dosages, has it ever been tested on people, in the same dose compared to weight in animals for testing?

I found this link http://www.nfid.org/pdf/factsheets/thimerosal.pdf is this document
correct?

Can you tell me what the effects of Ethyl Mercury vs Methyl Mercury are, if a person was overdosed with this is there any cure for it?

Glenn's doctors also said that it is stored in the brain.

Is Ethyl Mercury toxic like regular mercury, and how can a person know if the shot
contains Ethyl or Methyl Mercury?

What other effect if any, do you know if Ethyl Mercury stops bacteria? Does bacterias affect peoples brains from flu's?

Anyway I am a little confused, but I want third opinions as I don't like to make decisions on a whim when concerning everyone who lives here.

Thank you for your time.


On average, according to the Center for Disease Control, 36,171 people die each year in the U.S. from seasonal flu. This year with the H1N1 Swine flu we could be heading into one of the worst flu outbreaks since the 1918 flu pandemic. To stem the spread of the H1N1 flu, and reduce the number of people who die from it, it is critical to get as many people vaccinated as is possible, especially if they are in the high risk categories. Yet what does Glen Beck do? He tries to use the vaccine as yet another opportunity to stir up fear in his TV audience to convince them that President Obama and his administration are out to get them.

The email I received, is proof that Glen Beck's irresponsible behavior has indeed sowed fear, uncertainty and doubt into the minds of his viewers who were probably already concerned about the flu itself. Thanks to his spreading of paranoid delusions, there will undoubtedly be many individuals who will, out of fear, not get the vaccine. As a result, they will get sick and either die themselves or help spread the virus to others who in turn get sick and die. Glen Beck's actions and fear mongering are not just opportunistic, but they are incredibly irresponsible and should not be tolerated. His fear mongering has undoubtedly set in motion a chain of events, which will result in needless deaths.

In regards to the email I received above, here is the reply I sent them:
There have been several high profile cases of individuals trying to blame vaccines and ethyle mercury for all kinds of things including autism without one shred of scientific evidence to back up their claims. Studies have been conducted into these fears in the past and no causation could be shown. One must separate real science from pseudoscience and one must look at Glen Beck's history of outrageous statements that can not stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. His motivation is purely political and it is to spread fear and doubt.

You must ask yourself, who would you trust more about the safety of vaccines? Health care professionals who are working very hard to keep us from getting sick or a TV personality who makes a living being as outrageous as possible? I personally have no concerns about the safety of the vaccine and my entire family plans to get the vaccine when it becomes available.

The threat of H1N1 is very real. The supposed dangers of the vaccine are a figment of Glen Beck's imagination.

If you have the slightest doubt about this issue, I would suggest you consult your family physician. They are in the best position to explain the details to you. Just don't base your health care decisions on the paranoid delusions of some famous TV personality.

To answer your question about weights:
1kg = 1,000g = 1,000,000mg

Thus 237mg = 0.000237kg

Based on your note for maximum safe dosage and Ethyl Mercury concentration, you would have to get 421 injections of the H1N1 vaccine to reach the maximum safe dosage. You probably get more mercury in your diet from eating fish on a regular basis (especially if you sport fish).

Sincerely,
Ken Barbalace


Glen Beck has gone way beyond being a partisan hack with paranoid delusions. He has become a true menace to society and FOX News needs to remove him from their programming.

UPDATE
Leave it to the Daily Show with Jon Stewart to put the fear mongering around the N1H1 flu vaccine into perspective.
EnviroChem Logo