Living greener

[Matterhorn Fan]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

But I've read and heard (too tired looking for links) that recycling just causes more pollution. The recycling plants release fumes and waste that would not be there if they were not in operation.

But are those fumes and waste better or worse than having more trash in the landfills?

[Alex]

Everything pretty much involves some pollution. The question that has to be asked is not "does this produce no pollution\damage" but "does this produce less pollution\damage than the alternative."

[€uroMeinke]

I'm fine with Nuclear power in it's various incanations, but I think having a mix of power sources is the best way to go - they all have their benefits and problems, diversity spreads the risk.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Matterhorn Fan

But are those fumes and waste better or worse than having more trash in the landfills?

From what I understand (and this was just third hand from a classmate whose uncle works in enviro studies) some is better off in the ground but it's a push in the end.

And I hate those commercials showing parents sanatizing their kids world. One of the reasons we (my parnets and I) believe that I rarely get sick is because I was exposed to germs, allowed to get dirty and there wasn't this craze of anti-bacterial products on the market.

It's next to impossible to find anti-bacterial hand soap now. And I don't need anti-bacterial laundry soap either.

[Matterhorn Fan]

I buy hand-made soaps. They're not anti-bacterial.

I do keep anti-bacterial hand soap in the kitchen. It just makes sense after handling raw eggs. One bottle lasts a long time--I've been working on this crappy Cocunut Lime Verbena for ages now. It stinks.

[Kevy Baby]

Remember that paper is a renewable resource and is far more recyclable and biodegradable than plastic .

We are REALLY bad about conserving energy at out home. We now have 18 bearded dragons spread amongst 6 enclosures. Each enclosure has a flourescent UB B lamp and a basking (read: heat) lamp. Not only does this use a lot of energy, but also heats up the house which causes us to run the AC more.

[Not Afraid]

I believe all Method brand products don't have the anit-bacterial additive. At least their print ad said so.

[BarTopDancer]

Thanks Lisa! I shall check out Method the next time I go to Target. Which will be soon.

[Not Afraid]

Here's a link to their web site.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Personally, I think fuel cells are the pipe dream that has derailed sensible discussion into alternative fuels.

How can you justify calling fuel cells a pipe dream? They have been used successfully as far back as the Apollo program. They are currently used in business around the world to great effect. Did you think they were just for cars?

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

And I don't care about big business providing the power I'd just prefer we move from sources of power that destroy the environment by design to a source of power that only does significant damage to the environment by accident.

There will still be a need for big business energy, I don't say self generated power is for everyone, I just want it for me and large numbers of my fellow earth dwellers.

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

There's a guy in New Jersey that uses solar power to provide all of the electricity he needs for his home. He then uses the excess solar power for electrolysis to power fuel cells that run his home and car through the long winter when sunshine is rare and its energy reduced. To store enough hydrogen to power his fuel cells for 3 1/2 months required 10 1,000 gallon tanks. Fortunately he has 12 acres of land on which to put all of these solar panels and gas tanks.

Actually you mean there is a guy in New Jersey that wants to provide electricity for his home. He is not currently producing any Hydrogen. His problem with the 10-1,000 gallon tanks is NOT the fuel cell, it's the generation of the Hydrogen. If you will look back to my first post on this issue, you will see that I clearly state that currently the missing part of the solar-to-hydrogen-to-fuel cell equation is the technology to efficiently separate out hydrogen from water using the energy found in the visible part of the spectrum. Your New Jersey friend with his expensive "Electrolyzer" for generating hydrogen is definitely old school. It's inefficient and slow. You will note that his 10 takes are all low pressure which is why he needs so many. Why are they low pressure? Because under his plan he does not get enough energy to run a pump to pressurize the gas. So in short this guy is barking up the wrong tree but it's not the fault of the fuel cell, it's the current gas extraction technology limit that's the problem.

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

In most urban and suburban areas this simply wouldn't work without massive infrastructural redesigns. For example....,

Again, you are stuck thinking about current technology for gas extraction. You don't need acres of solar cells if you have even a 10 percent performance level direct solar to hydrogen process

Will everyone generate their own power? Of course not. Your typical office tower or factory will not be able to create it's own energy. Am I saying we should only focus on hydrogen generation? No. However it is a technology that could go a very long way towards solving our energy needs in a clean environment friendly way.