A Great Loss to the World

The world is still reeling from the loss of one Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple Computer, when tonight we learned of the loss of another innovative visionary: Dennis Ritchie, co-inventor of the C programming language on which much of modern computing is based, like it or not.  Mr Ritchie also played a significant role in the original development of UNIX.

So within one week, we have lost two greatly creative thinkers.  Perhaps one could say that the apple has lost its seeds or kernels.

RIP Steve Jobs and Dennis Ritchie.  You will both be missed, and remembered.

Another Great Blog!

I just have to write to let all of you know, in case you  don’t already, about MNN: the Mother Nature Network.  I personally just discovered the site today thanks to the writing of Chris Turner (@theturner on Twitter).  He provides a skillful skewering of a recent Globe and Mail article on the danger and horror of taking small children along for a bike ride.  Take note: this guy knows his shit!

Marketing of Electric Vehicles

Okay, I admit it.  Electric vehicles present an enticing field, and are worth every penny of research and development funding.  There is, however, at least one thing that really bothers me, specifically the marketing of these vehicles.  I am willing to accept that advertisers are in the business of deception, intentionally pulling the wool over consumers’ eyes (I don’t have to like it, though).  When I see a commercial that effectively encourages people to push their heads in the sand, though, I have a big problem.

While there have been a couple of ad campaigns over the past couple years that have prompted me to think in this way, the most recent one takes “ridiculous” to a new level.  Actually it’s rather clever, and if it wasn’t for the reveal as a car ad I would be rather impressed.  This particular ad shows people using every-day electronic and electrical tools and devices, but has them all powered by gasoline (read: fossil fuels).  That’s right.  Gas-powered alarm clocks, toasters, cell phones, dental drills.  Then we see a gentleman fuelling his hybrid vehicle, while a fully-electric vehicle quietly drives off.  (I’m not as interested by the brands here as I am in the implications, but the hybrid shown is a Chevy Volt, and the electric car is a Nissan LEAF.  Chevrolet is understandably unimpressed by this spot.)

The spot (you can watch it here) seems to imply that, by owning and driving a 100% electric vehicle, you are not participating in the carbon economy, at least as far as your vehicle is concerned.  Of course, this could not be further from the truth.  Every aspect of the vehicles existence and life-span is touched by the dusty, oily finger of carbon.  Design, development, manufacture (collectively: production); transport and delivery; fuel; maintenance and repair; and disposal.  This will be the case until we have an economy and infrastructure that is not based on fossil fuels.  Of course, people don’t like to be reminded of these matters.  Especially the people with the power.

How do you fuel an electric car?

A simple schematic of a coal-fired power plant. (GEOS 24705, University of Chicago)

It seems to me that people have in their heads that electricity is free and readily available, created by some magical creature.  While it is often readily available, it is by no means free.  Nor is it necessarily “clean.”  Therefore, people don’t really think of electric power as a fuel.

So how do we get this electric fuel?  In North America, electricity is generated primarily by burning coal.  Coal is carbon, and produces a fair amount of energy on burning.  Of course, coal contains other ingredients such as sulphur and nitrogen, so burning one kilogram of coal yields around 700 kcal (2.9 MJ) rather than the 12,000 kcal (50.2 MJ) of pure carbon.  The nitrogen is often released as gas or as NO₂, while sulphur transforms to SO₂ (an acid rain gas).

Yes, there is electricity generated at hydro dams (more in BC and Central Canada than in Alberta) and nuclear reactors (Central Canada), but all of those facilities and infrastructure was built using coal and fossil fuels.  The same goes for solar power, but that is a whole other story.  The point is that the majority of electricity available in North America is generated by coal combustion.

Disingenuous…

As I said before, my main problem with this particular ad is the implication that electric vehicles are at least partly removed from the carbon economy.  This sort of disingenuous messaging is dangerous.  People already tend to take electric power for granted.  I am guilty of this as well.  However, this particular message has the effect of perpetuating this habit.  Indeed, it is possible that electric vehicles in general could have that effect, since the energy source is far removed from the fuelling point.  Of course, it seems the auto industry relies on disingenuous advertising, and on people conveniently “forgetting” certain important facts, to sell its wares.

This Just In: Auto Execs Think Differently Than Consumers About EVs

A study by IBM’s Institute for Business Value has found that consumers and auto executives have very divergent views when it comes to electric vehicles (EVs).  I really doubt this is all that surprising.  Some of the survey results are summarized in the graphic below.  I highly recommend checking out the whole article, as it is interesting.

As I said, I’m not surprised that there is a disconnect between the two populations.  What surprises me is the magnitude of the disconnect.

(Via EarthTechling)

Preparing for a New Term…

My next and final term at SAIT Polytechnic begbins tomorrow.  In preparation, I’ve been cleaning up around the house, but also I have checked out what is already available online.  Some instructors have posted information and assignments already.  Even if it is only the course outline and schedule, it is helpful.

The courses I am enrolled in for this term are:

• Advanced Environmental Considerations
• Water & Wastewater Treatment
• Field Safety
• Environmental Microbiology
• Environmental Project Management
• Solid Waste Management
• Subdivision Planning, Design, and Land Use
• Environmental Technical Project

That is eight courses, two of which have laboratory components to them, essentially taking the number of courses to ten.

Advanced Environmental Considerations is considered to be a “capstone” course that will include three major term projects.  The very first part of the course, which has already been posted, looks at the analysis and interpretation  of data collected during field school.  Specifically, we collected data on selected parameters of water chemistry at the beaver ponds in Kananaskis Country (see Field School Day 4).  The (seemingly contrived) research question is whether there is “something in the water” that is making some beavers reproduce at a higher rate than others.

The Environmental Technical Project is a week-long work study project that the MacPhail School of Energy calls a “practicum”.  I fail to see how a true practicum can be completed in a single week, but I guess I will see (and hopefully be impressed).  When I hear of practicums (practica?) from other programs or from the University of Calgary, they are semester-long work projects.

I was rather concerned about the Environmental Microbiology course, as I have absolutely zero background in biology.  I studied physics and chemistry in high school, and went straight to geophysics in college/university.  Suffice it to say that my true love has for a long, long time been physics and mathematics.  After talking to the instructor, Shannon Buckley, though, I am really excited about the course.  I don’t delude myself that it will be supremely easy, but I am excited and interested to find out how microbiology is applied to or involved in environmental studies.  For example, one thing that we learned in Site Reclamation (third term course) was that bioluminescent bacteria are used to determine the toxicity of various drilling muds.  I look forward to learning more about this, and possibly doing the test myself.  I’ll keep you posted.

Another course that I am looking forward to is Suburban Planning, Design, and Land Use.  I have joked with my friends many times that city planners don’t actually plan.  Rather, what they do is throw a bunch of needles or toothpicks on a gridded table.  Whatever pattern they form is what the new roads and parking lots in a community will take.  (This is, of course, based on opinion and the experience of living in a city full of labyrinthine communities with more turns than a meandering stream.)  I also was not encouraged after reading James Howard Kunstler‘s The Geography of Nowhere.  If you haven’t read it, I would encourage you to do so.  Kunstler makes many cogent observations while discussing the history of America’s development and geography (Canada follows many, if not most, of the same patterns), examining how we went from beautiful, walkable communities to suburban centres  where walking is all but incomprehensible.  In a way, this is a history of car culture.

Given the number of major projects EVT students suffer through encounter in the third term of the program, Environmental Project Management is a course that might fit better in the second semester than the fourth.  Nonetheless, I’m sure it will be an interesting and useful  project that will allow us to learn from the mistakes of past group projects.

Finally, I am really interested in the (waste)water treatment course.  I really enjoyed the  second-term course involving water chemistry (atmospheric chemistry was the other component) and look forward to learning more.  This course involves a laboratory component, and I rather look forward to actually doing some experiments in water chemistry.  The most disturbing point is that the course text, Chemistry for Environmental Engineering and Science, is available at the SAIT bookstore for approximately CDN$215.  I kid you not!  I managed to find a soft-cover version of the exact same edition of the text for a total of CDN$70 (including shipping) on Amazon.ca (I’ll update if there are any customs charges).  Of course, I cannot say whether such deals will be available for long, let alone for future years, but if you can find a paperback version of the same edition as that required you will certainly pay much less.

I am really hoping that I will be able to keep this blog updated more than I did last term.  Blogging about school and research is fun, and can be useful to future and current students alike, so long as it is understood that this is one person’s opinion rather than a definitive assessment.

How Does Your Favourite Bottled Water Fare?

Given that the ads for (and labels on) bottled water everywhere give consumers the impression the water they are buying is clean and pure, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) had some questions.  After all, if you are drinking the water, do you not have the right to know exactly what is inside?  What source did the water come from?  Is the water purified?  If so, how?  Have any contaminants been found?  Well, most manufacturers disagree, simply refusing to answer one or more of these questions.

The EWG has therefore done some testing of its own and produced a report card.  The results are somewhat disturbing, if unsurprising.  You can check them out for yourself here, but here are some highlights – well, lowlights, really:

• EWG Recommends (A): Filtered Tap Water
• Best Transparency (B): Gerber Pure Purified Water, Nestle Pure Life Purified Water, Penta Ultra-Purified Water
• Worst Transparency (F): Cumby’s Spring Water, Market Basket Natural Spring Water, Sahara Premium Drinking Water

Of course, many of these are American brands that are not available in Canada.  But everyone should still be aware of what’s out there and what’s going on.  Apparently it is only in California that bottled water brands must disclose information about their water source and quality.  Still, many ignore this law, essentially counting on the Powers That Be to turn a blind eye.

I suggest using filtered tap water and a stainless steel water bottle.

No Facebook, No Problem

Just say NO to Facebook!

Every now and then I find people coming to this blog using search strings such as “no to facebook” or “no facebook”, so I thought I would write something about it.

At this point I am resisting Facebook on principle.  I have not succumbed to the great pressure from friends and family wondering “Why are you not on Facebook?”, and I’m not about to bow to such pressure now.  I also just don’t see the need to have my life available to everyone in one place.  Not everyone needs to know about some party I just had or went to and any shenanigans that (may or may not have) happened.  Of course, such problems can be avoided with limited profile management and self-censorship, but why open up yet another online presence to manage in the first place?

I just recently got a new cell phone – the HTC Desire Z.  I love it.  It comes complete with a Facebook app and widget, but it also is intimately interlinked with Google (seeing as they produce the Android operating system the phone runs on).  So, I’ve decided to get a Google account and use the infrastructure that is there.  I have a Google Calendar that I use (though it’s mostly filled with classes through the end of April 2011), but for personal security reasons it is not public.  Email, either from my home account or Gmail, gets pushed to my phone almost instantly.  I can edit my Calendar from my phone, on the go.  I can send SMS messages, make phone calls, and much more.  For my professional life, I’m available on LinkedIn.  I’m about as connected as I want to be, and I don’t need or want another platform to look after and maintain.

If you have similar ideas of the Facebook phenomenon, please feel free to leave a comment below.  Or maybe you think you can convince me to play the game.  I’ll welcome all sides of the argument.

Site Reclamation Project: Part I

I have talked before about the site reclamation project my class worked on over the course of the fall 2010 semester.  In this and the next couple articles, I will talk more about the scenario, what we did, and what we acheived.  I’ll even throw in some pictures for good measure.

The Setup

The contaminated environment is composed of sand, silt loam, water, and open atmosphere, layered in the manner shown to mimic a lake or ocean shoreline. The land was contaminated at the location shown. The water environment was also contaminated, but is not shown here. (Photo Credit: Brad Camroux. Diagram created in Inkscape)

At the beginning of term the class was informed that we would be working on a term project involving the remediation of a contaminated environment.  This environment consisted of a 20-gallon tank filled with sand, loam (soil), and water, in a manner that simulated a beach shoreline.  The environment was contaminated (by the instructor) in two places with crude oil.  Our instructor took initial samples were taken from the soil and water, which were tested (by Wendy and Fara, the wonderful ladies of lab stores) for the BTEX group only (time is money, and these tests take time).

Our task was to apply what we were learning in site reclamation class, as well as other research and collective knowledge, to the contaminated tanks.

Controls

With five groups experimenting, each in its own tank, our instructor set up two control tanks, each with the same amount of sand, soil, and water.  One control tank was left uncontaminated; the other received the same amount of crude oil contamination as each of the other tanks.  As control tanks, no attempts were made to remediate the contamination.

Samples were taken from each of the controls at the same time as from the experiment tanks and were tested for the same component(s).  The intent of this was to compare our remediated tanks with the controls in an attempt to determine success and possibly identify areas for improvement.

My Group

My group consisted of myself and four others.  Each of us researched and implemented different techniques: soil washing, phytoremediation, static aeration, nitrogen fertilization, sorbent pads, and methanotrophic charging.  In the next article I will discuss who did what, and how the methods may have affected the environment.

Of Bulbs and Batteries

Okay, so we’ve all done this before. You change your fluorescent light and wonder what to do with the dead one. Same thing with batteries. The last thing you should do with either is put them in the garbage to go to the landfill. Fluorescent bulbs contain mercury, and we get more than enough of that from the fish we eat (and in some places, the water we drink). Alkaline batteries may seem harmless, but they are filled with a dry chemical mixture designed to produce electrical potential energy (usually 1.5 volts). Just because the bulbs or batteries have been depleted does not mean they are harmless.

Fortunately, there are safe ways to dispose of such toxic tihngs.  I recently learned that Ikea accepts both batteries and fluorescent bulbs for recycling.  So even if you don’t normally go to Ikea, you can take your used bulbs and dead batteries in.  Have a look around.  They have some great product.  While you’re at it, pledge to switch to rechargeable batteries to power your portable electronic devices.  Staples and Home Depot also accept batteries for recycling.

By the way, lead-acid (car) batteries should never ever be put in the landfill.  Always contact your local repair shop for proper disposal,  or (in Calgary at least) you can take them to your local fire department handling household hazardous waste.

For more information about batteries and battery-disposal, take a look at Calgary Fasteners & Tools Ltd.  Granted, this applies mostly to the batteries used in power tools, but they are hazardous and should also not be put in landfill.

Smoky Air Quality

Much of Alberta has become inundated with smoke from forest fires burning in British Columbia, carried east by upper level winds.  To be fair, we deal with at least a few smoky days every summer.  It is still uncomfortable, however, and many people can be adversely affected.  People with respiratory difficulties are, of course, most at risk.  The Alberta government has thus issued an advisory, recommending that people avoid strenuous physical activity outdoors.

Air Quality Measurements and the AQI

Air quality is monitored for various regions in Alberta.  The air quality index (AQI) is provided by Alberta Environment (AENV)  as a “qualitative measure of outdoor air”.  The overall AQI for a given region is determined by the worst of several pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NO_x) measured as nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), ozone (O₃), sulphur dioxide (SO₂), and fine particulate matter (PM_2.5).

Of course, any index requires a scale.  The AQI scale is as follows:

Value	Rating
0-25	Good
26-50	Fair
51-100	Poor
>100	Very Poor

Each pollutant above is measured and assigned a value.  The highest value becomes the rating for that region.  Also, it is important to note that each province has its own independent system.  It is therefore impossible to reliably correlate across the country.

Alberta’s Airsheds

For the purpose of air quality monitoring, the province of Alberta is divided into nine regions, called airsheds.  Eight airsheds are up and running, and the other is currently under development (according to the Clean Air Strategic Alliance (CASA) website, but who knows how often that site is updated).  The nine regions are:

• Calgary Regional Airshed Zone (CRAZ) – Calgary area
• Lakeland Industry and Community Association (LICA) – Bonnyville, Cold Lake, St. Paul and region
• Fort Air Partnership (FAP) – Fort Saskatchewan and region
• Palliser Airshed Society (PAS) – Medicine Hat and Redcliffe
• Parkland Airshed Management Zone (PAMZ) – Red Deer, Rocky Mountain House, Sundre, Banff, and surrounding regions
• Peace Airshed Zone Association (PASZA) – Grand Prairie and region
• West Central Airshed Society (WCAS) – Jasper, Hinton, Edson, Lake Wabamun, Drayton Valley, Pigeon Lake, and surrounding regions
• Wood Buffalo Environmental Association (WBEA) – Fort McMurray and the Wood Buffalo region
• Alberta Capital Airshed Alliance (ACAA) – Edmonton Region (in development)

Alberta has basically followed the lead of Saskatchewan in developing airsheds.  The regions covered by Alberta’s airsheds should be familiar to those who remember the old health regions – they’re very similar.

CRAZ

The Calgary Regional Airshed Zone Society is a “non-profit association with members from government agencies …, non-government organizations, industry and the public.”

Three active monitoring stations located in Calgary, used to determine air quality for the entire CRAZ.

The most disturbing thing to my mind is that the AQI rating for the entire CRAZ is based on three active monitoring stations located in Calgary (see the map to the right).  However, there are other active monitoring stations in southern Alberta: one in Lethbridge, and another (for the Palliser Airshed Society) in Medicine Hat (which apparently is not currently working).

Of course, there is also the problem that the equipment is old (1970s vintage), likely resulting in increased maintenance costs.

Data

Each airshed zone must submit its data to the Alberta Ambient Air Data Management System – CASA’s data warehouse.  It is designed to be  a central data repository for Alberta’s 140 active monitoring stations.  Should you wish to view the data for yourself, feel free to navigate to the website at http://www.casadata.org.