Environment Rotary Fellowship Bulletin Board

Projects sometimes involve the introduction or increase in a particular plants or animals.
Please consult before doing this.

Goats may be an economic windfall in some areas while in others they degrade the plants and cause erosion and expansion of deserts.
Cows may be useful in some areas but use too much plant material for the productive result.
Every animal needs to be carefully considered. There are usually local agricultural groups or training facilities where you can get advice.
Australia introduced camels to provise transport when they were building the overland telegraph through the desert, They are now a problem with huge numbers. The same happened with rabbits.
Plants- can also turn into a menace. many areas need new seeds to increase production. Remember no GM , the crops will never be sprayed as the owners cannot afford it and most M crops are modified to suit a particular spray.
No hybrids, we need the seeds. Do not introduce anything which will turn into a weed. Remember all the garden plants we introduced because they looked good. They are spraying Pampas grass all over the place.
Bamboo , a useful plant in some areas but spreads and takes over productive land.
We need to have some way of passing the information on, especially to clubs doing their first project overseas.
Perhaps there could be a set of guidlines for projects which people could consult
.

Supplying Central America with safe, fuel-efficient stoves
By Peter Schmidtke

Six years ago, Rotarian Nancy Hughes had a career-defining experience as a volunteer with a U.S. medical team in Guatemala.

She met an 18-year-old indigenous woman who had lost the use of her hands at age 2 after falling into a cooking fire. Hughes learned that the common practice of cooking over open, indoor fires led to a high incidence of burns and smoke inhalation, especially in children. The team's doctors restored function to the woman's hands, and her expressions of gratitude spurred Hughes to search for a way to prevent such injuries.

In 2004, Hughes, a member of the Rotary Club of Eugene Southtowne, Oregon, wrote the first of five Matching Grants that provided more than 2,300 safe stoves in Guatemala over a three-year period.

She discovered a less expensive, lighter prototype, however, in a 50-pound portable stove called the Ecocina. The stove resembles a large cement flowerpot and has a partially covered top and a sheltered opening on one side. Designed by Larry Winiarski and Eugene Southtowne Rotarian Ken Goyer, the Ecocina is insulated to prevent burns and requires up to 50 percent less wood than an open fire. It also reduces smoke and carbon monoxide output by at least 70 percent.

In 2008, Hughes and five other Eugene Southtowne Rotarians founded StoveTeam International. Aided by two Volunteer Service Grants, she and others from her club traveled twice to El Salvador and Guatemala to scout locations for Ecocina factories and educate communities and local organizations about the stoves.

That same year, a group of volunteers, including Hughes, constructed workbenches and storage areas for a factory near Sonsonate, El Salvador, that employs up to 15 workers. Two Matching Grants supplied raw materials and helped subsidize the $40 cost of the stove to buyers. In its first full year of operation, the factory produced 6,000 Ecocinas and is now self-sufficient.

"We decided we were not about producing stoves; we were about producing factories to produce stoves," Hughes says. "And I really like the idea that we are providing people with employment."

"We are all very grateful because this has changed our lives," echoes factory owner Gustavo Peña, pointing to the company's positive impact on "all who do the factory work" and "all those families who receive an Ecocina."

Peña coordinates village Ecocina demonstrations with Peace Corps volunteers and solicits outside interest, including a recent order from the Mexican government for 3,000 stoves. He has also helped train owners for three factories in Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. These Matching Grant-supported factories started producing Ecocinas in early 2010, and a fourth, independently funded factory will begin operating in Nicaragua in April. Rotary clubs in El Salvador and the Guatemala Sur club in Guatemala have contributed to the effort by overseeing distribution, assisting in construction, and offsetting the cost of the Ecocinas to buyers.

Since its founding, StoveTeam International has received approximately $370,000 from 40 Rotary clubs, Foundation grants, and private donations.

"Demands for new factories arrive in my e-mail every week," says Hughes, who is planning operations in Fiji, Mexico, and Paraguay. "New factory owners are learning stove production and business practices and more and more people are receiving fuel-efficient stoves every day."

Source: Rotary International News / Courtesy: eFlash_Rotary

Which One is Best?
MICHAEL KANELLOS - greentechsolar



Bloom Energy today formally unveiled its energy server, an industrial solid oxide fuel cell that can convert natural gas or other hydrocarbons into electricity pretty much on demand.

And in the process, the company has ignited a debate over which of the alternatives to coal, nuclear and centralized natural gas plants might be best. Can we answer it today? No -- one of the pivotal factors will be how Bloom's servers (formerly known as Bloom Boxes) perform over time. Board member Colin Powell said at the unveiling that the company doesn't have twenty years of user data.

But we can speculate and compare. And here are some of the key things to keep an eye on.

Versatility and Up-Front Cost: A 100-kilowatt Bloom server array costs around $700,000 to $800,000, or $7,500 a kilowatt, after incentives that cover around 50 percent of the costs. The company hopes to have home versions that generate a few kilowatts and cost about $3,000 in ten years, but they don't exist now.

Bloom, however, doesn't scale down yet. It sells its 25 kilowatt boxes four units at a time. Home and small businesses need not apply just yet. Solar systems span the kilowatt and megawatt range. Ergo, when it comes to financing and flexibility, solar wins for now.

Can fuel cells scale down? Yes. Panasonic started selling home fuel cells in Japan last year that generate around 1 kilowatt, not enough to power a complete household, for $30,000 before incentives, or $15,000 if you factored in U.S./California incentives. ClearEdge Power has a 5 kilowatt fuel cell that costs $56,000 and drops to the $30,000 to $25,000 range after incentives. (Side note: Bloom's fuel cell produces mostly electricity and a little heat, while heat consists of half or more of the power from the Panasonic and ClearEdge fuel cells. Electricity is more valuable than heat, so for Bloom to be equivalent in price or less than these guys would be a victory for Bloom.) We're guessing Bloom is aiming for around $1,000 a kilowatt, which won't be easy. Ceres Power in England will come out with a fuel cell made in part with diesel components next year.

Energy costs: CEO and Founder K.R. Sridhar said the Bloom server will produce power for 9 to 10 cents per kilowatt hour after incentives in California. This price includes service, maintenance, gas and all of the other costs associated with running it. Commercial solar installations in California, when incentives and external costs are added, generate power for around 10 cents a kilowatt hour, according to Shayle Kann at GTM Research. Residential solar generates power for around 19 cents a kilowatt hour and utility-scale solar costs around 11 cents a kilowatt hour. Cutting-edge wind turbines can generate power for costs five cents a kilowatt hour after incentives, according to the American Wind Energy Association. Kann says that on average, wind costs a little less than solar.

Wind, thus, still wins this contest, and solar and Bloom are about tied. Bloom server buyers will have to contend with fluctuating gas prices: the box does not work if you don't put gas into it. If methane and biogas rise in price, so will the cost of running the box. Buyers, however, can likely insulate themselves with long-term gas contracts.

Cost reductions: This is a big question mark. Solar and wind are somewhat mature technologies. Nonetheless, incremental advancements -- better solar racking, cheaper thin films, more efficient turbines -- continue to bring down the cost of both solar and wind. Bloom is just starting out. Three years ago, the same box that now produces 25 kilowatts of power only produced 5 kilowatts. Scott Sandell, a Bloom board member and a partner at NEA, said the costs for Bloom have gone down 25x in just a few years.

Bloom, therefore, may have an advantage, because costs always drop the fastest in the beginning. On the other hand, Bloom is outnumbered. Thousands of engineers in various segments of the solar industry are working on dropping those costs. Do you believe in individual genius or crowdsourcing? That is the dynamic at play here and this will be one of the more interesting races to watch.

Maintenance. Solar wins here. Solar panels require a minimum of maintenance. Dust them occasionally and wipe off the snow and you are done. Bloom servers will be monitored closely by their initial buyers. The servers also contain fans and other mechanical objects. More handholding and repairs seem inevitable.

One of the big hurdles that Bloom will have to cross is the reliability of the ceramic/zirconium plates inside the fuel cell. These plates, which convert gas to electricity, must operate in an 800-degree Celsius environment without becoming distorted or corrupted. User data will be heavily scrutinized. Sources say that the plates have a lifetime of five years: replacement at this pace is contemplated in the 9 to 10 cents a kilowatt hour price. If replacement occurs at a faster rate, it could throw off the costs.

Warranty. Solar systems have warranties that last 20 years or more. Bloom currently offers a 10-year warranty. That discrepancy will definitely raise eyebrows.

Testing and certification. Solar and wind both have an advantage here. Underwriters' Laboratory and hundreds of utilities have tested and tinkered with photovoltaic panels and wind turbines for years. Getting a solar field approved mostly revolves around obtaining financing. Bloom will have to go through the proctology exam of utility reliability testing. That could take a few years. On the other hand, if Bloom passes these tests well, sales will zoom.

Carbon emissions. Solar and wind win again. It takes about four years to work off the carbon footprint of a solar panel. The Bloom server continually emits carbon dioxide. The Bloom server emits about half of the carbon dioxide that would be generated if you bought power from a power plant, but it's still carbon dioxide. Consumers can reduce their carbon footprint by stoking the box with biogas, but biogas remains an exotic substance. Most of the industrial gas sold and shipped in pipelines in the world comes from wells deep in the ground, not landfills or manure digesters.

Bloom's patents discuss converting the waste carbon dioxide into a methane-like fuel by running the carbon dioxide through the fuel cell and adding water. It's a fascinating but extremely challenging idea. Effectively, that would be like making energy from Gerolsteiner bubbly mineral water and some power. In today's press conference, Sridhar downplayed the carbon dioxide-to-fuel idea, which makes it sound like the idea might be on the far back burner. Still, Bloom represents a step forward compared to power plants.

Availability: This is Bloom's biggest selling point. The box can produce power 24 hours a day in a completely predictably fashion. Solar panels only produce during the day and wind turbines are only active about 30 percent of the time. Worse, wind turbines in many areas generate most of their power at night.

Storage: Advantage Bloom again. Fuel cells are by their very nature electricity storage devices. Power doesn't get made until gas gets released into the fuel cell stack. General Electric and others are trying to build sodium or lithium battery packs to store power at wind and solar fields but these are in the experimental stage.

Sridhar also mentioned that in about ten years, Bloom will add plumbing and other technology to its servers so that the boxes can convert water into hydrogen for more energy storage. Pulling this off will require electricity from an outside source, preferably from solar panels. Don't be surprised to see them team up with Sun Catalytix, an MIT spin-off with a catalyst for splitting water.

Competition: Bloom will have to face an array of competitors: General Electric, Siemens, Philips, Areva, you name it. The relatively small company will have to run fast to stay ahead of industrial giants or else face getting acquired. Solar and wind have already gone through this process. Solar and wind companies again can also license ideas and leverage partnerships. Bloom right now is sort of on its own.

Manufacturing footprint: The solar industry continues to work off a glut of excess factory capacity. Bloom needs to build its up. Solar, thus, wins for now, but for painful reasons. Although Bloom has raised around $400 million, it will need to raise more to build up factory capacity. As other companies have found, finding financing still remains tough.

Creationists Seek To Stop The Teaching Of Global Warming
BRYAN NELSON - Mother Nature Network

Divine Command: Many creationists believe only God has the power to effect the climate. Critics of the practice of teaching evolution in science classrooms are taking up a new strategy: going after the teaching of global warming.

By linking the global warming debate with these other issues, proponents of the legislation have a two-pronged motive. First, it strengthens their legal argument. Courts have ruled that singling out evolution for criticism violates the separation of church and state, so going after global warming gives them a broader agenda and thus opens a legal loophole. Second, by riding the coattails of rising public doubt about climate science, creationists hope to legitimize their stance against the scientific establishment in general.

"Wherever there is a battle over evolution now, there is a secondary battle to diminish other hot-button issues like Big Bang and, increasingly, climate change. It is all about casting doubt on the veracity of science - to say it is just one view of the world, just another story, no better or more valid than fundamentalism," physicist Lawrence M. Krauss of the Origins Initiative at
Arizona

State University told the New York Times.

And the bill in Kentucky is only the latest in a string of legislative attempts across the country with similar intent. Just this week, a resolution passed in
South Dakota

that called for more "balanced" teaching of global warming in public schools, citing that "carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life." Last year the
Texas

Board of Education required teachers to present all sides of the debate when discussing global warming, and in
Oklahoma

a bill much like Kentucky's was introduced.

Aside from sharing political and legal agendas, critics of global warming and critics of evolution may seem like improbable bedfellows. After all, what does global warming really have to do with creationism, and vice versa? But the two issues share a lot of cultural overlap.

For instance, a survey published in October by the Pew Research Center found that white evangelical Protestants were among those least likely to believe that there was "solid evidence" that the Earth was warming because of human activity. Rev. Jim Ball of the Evangelical Environmental Network, a religious group that accepts the science of global warming, noted that many Christian fundamentalists have difficulty accepting the reality of human-induced global warming because they believe only God has the power to alter the climate.

Yet despite the obstacles, climate scientists and educators are mounting a movement and counterstrategy of their own. The Climate Education Interagency Working Group, a group that consolidates the efforts of several federal agencies, is making a strong push under President Obama's leadership toward "climate literacy" for both teachers and students.

So long as science itself is not banned from the classroom, climate scientists and evolutionists alike still have one major advantage in the fight: sound, empirical evidence.