It would be instructive to see the pricing at the end of the day between coal and where and how the coal is produced, tar sands and natural gas for electrical power. The environmental costs of blowing up mountains, creating huge tailing ponds and extraction and refining costs, and transportation and distribution expenses and their impacts i.e. trains, trucks, pipelines need to be put into the equations.
The same goes between fossil fuels, hydroelectricity and nuclear, all of which have their tradeoffs. For example, what are the true disposal costs of fly ash versus that of nuclear waste, per unit generated? FCA would allow power buyers to make effective decisions on where they get the bulk of their electricity.
There are also many nagging questions over green power especially as to whether it is truly environmentally sound. For example, small scale hydroelectric projects have been touted as alternatives to large ones.
Yet is this actually the case when FCA methodologies are applied, such as on construction of the dams and building new transmission lines? It is one thing to reuse an existing dam or dammed river near in-place distribution systems, such as on the Moira River in Belleville, Ontario; it is another to 'greenfield' a run-of-river plant in coastal British Columbia.
The same goes for wind and solar power. Do they cost-effectively produce the power for the investment and operating i.e. maintenance expenses required, for the land consumed?
Questions have been raised about ethanol thanks to FCA, and it is falling out of fashion as a result what with the trucks and trains to haul and the plants to process the material. It follows wood fuel that was also touted as an alternative energy source.
I got a perspective of wood fuel some 20 years ago when I worked as a reporter in a small British Columbia town. A power plant at the local sawmill that burned waste fuel often belched out soot. The particulate matter and other emissions from wood stoves and furnaces created harmful smog in local valleys in winter.
FCA also needs to be applied to smart grid strategies. I've heard the argument that smart grid investments makes sense where electricity costs are high i.e. Ontario and grid partners i.e. in Ohio are unstable as witnessed by the 2003 blackout, but the ROI may not be there in British Columbia or Manitoba where the rates are low and the infrastructure is stable.
FCA should also be applied when comparing how that energy is used i.e. power plants to create electricity for use in rail and urban transit or in internal combustion engines. That will help policymaker decide more accurately whether to go with clean diesel, CNG/LNG, hybrid, hydrogen and electrification.
Finally FCA should be applied to conservation versus added building or buying additional generation capacity. If conservation via changes in methods and processes, or investments in more efficient technologies proves to be comparatively cheaper then more people, and commercial and institutions will conserve. And that's win-win all around.
Carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter are the key harmful compounds and materials released when burning fossil fuels such as for electric power generation. Gartner reports that data centers account for almost a quarter of global CO2 emissions from information and communications technology, placing it on a par with the aviation industry.
Teradata, which makes data warehousing appliances and solutions, has devised, deployed, and is putting together technologies that reduce energy demand and emissions and which cut the size of building footprint. Among them:
* New cabinet designs that permit more efficient cooling
* Intel multi-core processors that permit more computing power with the same amount of energy
* On tap for late 2010/late 2011are new solid-state drives that are much more efficient than traditional electromechanical magnetic tape-drive units
Emerson Network Power has put together ten ways to get more out of data centers with fewer resources. Here are just a few examples:
* A relatively small investment in precision air conditioning and backup power
* Increasing data densities thanks to new cooling architectures can enable densities notably higher than average data center densities at a fraction of the cost of building a new facility
* Deploying economizers can be used to allow outside cool air to complement data center cooling systems and provide 'free cooling' during colder months
Take a look at these solutions and advice. What do you have to lose: other than high electric bills, wasted resources, and bad air?
--BR
(One wonders just how 'filthy' Alberta tar sands-derived oil really is: from source to refinery compared to shipping 'cleaner' crude from the Middle East on diesel-burning and pollutant-spewing tankers. Answers, please)
Americans also, in a majority of cases, approved ballot initiatives to finance mass transit, including new and expanded bus and rail systems and high-speed intercity rail. The American Public Transit Association reports that voters in 16 states approved 23 out of 32 transit-related ballot measures, or 72 percent, that authorize up to $75 billion in spending.
Examples include:
* A $10 billion bond issue to construct the first phase of a $45 billion high-speed rail line that will eventually stretch from San Diego to San Francisco, Calif. The project will require matching federal and private matching funds
* $40 billion in local transit and highway improvements in Los Angeles including light rail and rapid transit extensions, including at long last, links to LAX, to Santa Monica, and between the separate rail lines in downtown L.A
* A diesel commuter rail line in Sonoma and Marin counties north of San Francisco
* A $4.3 billion rail rapid transit line in Honolulu
* Proposition 1, a half-cent sales tax increase to supply nearly $18 billion in new and expanded light rail lines and improved commuter rail and bus in the Puget Sound (Seattle/Bellevue/Everett/Tacoma) region
The news was not all good. Kansas City voters rejected funding for a new 14-mile light rail system while St. Louis elector rejected a sales tax increase to continue financing its rail, bus, and paratransit network. This last one is a head-shaker: the St. Louis region's transit system is a star performer: its MetroLink LRT has imaginatively used existing railroad rights-of-way (including a downtown tunnel) to cost-effectively connect the metro region.
What makes these votes all the more significant even with the setbacks, are the overriding concerns over the economy and the ability of taxpayers to finance transit expansion. There are already growing reports of transit cutbacks.
Yet it is important to remember that keeping transit going represents a sound investment because it provides mobility for people who can no longer afford to keep the number of cars they do, or cars altogether, and that it provides good, clean, and green employment at a time when we need jobs, economic infusion, and take action on climate change.
--BR