Harvard - Don't eat conventional peaches while you are pregnant," Spend a little bit more money to buy organic just to be safe."

ChicagoTribune - Pesticides in your peaches: Tribune and USDA studies find pesticides, some in excess of EPA rules, in the fragrant fruit
Latest government report shows more than 50 pesticides on the fruit. How can you avoid the risks?

As we munch into the fragrant core of peach season, shoppers face an array of choices for the same fuzzy fruit but little guidance on which type to pick. Expensive organic? Pricey farmers market? Cheap peaches from the grocery store?

Which contain the highest levels of pesticides?
Preliminary 2008 U.S. Department of Agriculture tests obtained by the Chicago Tribune show that more than 50 pesticide compounds showed up on domestic and imported peaches headed for U.S. stores. Five of the compounds exceeded the limits set by the Environmental Protection Agency, and six of the pesticide compounds present are not approved for use on peaches in the United States.

These are the types of findings that have landed peaches on one environmental group's "Dirty Dozen" list -- 12 fruits and vegetables that retain the highest levels of pesticide residues -- and give many consumers pause as they shop grocery aisles. It seems that peaches' delicate constitutions, fuzzy skins and susceptibility to mold and pests cause them to both need and retain pesticides at impressive rates.

Although most pesticides in peaches were found at levels well below EPA tolerances, some scientists and activists remain concerned about even low-level exposure, especially to pregnant women and children. They point to studies, for example, that show cognitive impairment

Read more at ChicagoTribune

Two-thirds of U.S. fish exceeded EPA level of mercury concern for fish-eating...

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS)

 Scientists detected mercury contamination in every fish sampled in 291 streams across the country, according to a U.S. Geological Survey study released today.

About a quarter of these fish were found to contain mercury at levels exceeding the criterion for the protection of people who consume average amounts of fish, established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. More than two-thirds of the fish exceeded the U.S. EPA level of concern for fish-eating mammals.

“This study shows just how widespread mercury pollution has become in our air, watersheds, and many of our fish in freshwater streams,” said Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. “This science sends a clear message that our country must continue to confront pollution, restore our nation’s waterways, and protect the public from potential health dangers.”

See - Mercury in Stream Ecosystems report

MANY thanks for submission by Shirl Kennedy DocuTicker

Avoidable Deaths Worldwide -Scope of issues and What can and is being done

Nice summary by NextBigFuture on reducing worldwide deaths and incidents


WHO estimates that better use of existing preventive measures could reduce the global burden of disease by as much as 70%.

2008 World Health Report.
Accelerating the improvement in lowering deaths from infectious disease. The top chart shows that acute respiratory infections, diarrheal disease, Malaria, HIV/Aids and Tuberculosis kill about 9 million people in 2009. Progress in developing vaccines to treat Malaria is helping. Infectious disease is an area where a lot of deaths could be avoided.

In the year 2000, indoor air pollution from solid fuel use was responsible for more than 1.6 million annual deaths and 2.7% of the global burden of disease (in Disability-Adjusted Life Years or DALYs). This makes this risk factor the second biggest environmental contributor to ill health, behind unsafe water and sanitation.Every year, indoor air pollution is responsible for nearly 800,000 deaths due to pneumonia among children under five years of age. The solution is to make burning solid fuel indoors less deadly or to avoid it all together.

Outdoor air pollution was found to account for approximately 1.4% of total mortality, 0.5% of all disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and 2% of all cardiopulmonary disease (World Health Report 2002).

Newly Identified Persistent Free Radicals
This is mainly from 2.5 to 10 micron particulates from the burning of coal and oil.

Persistent free radicals (PFRs) — form on airborne nanoparticles and other fine particle residues as gases cool in smokestacks, automotive exhaust pipes and household chimneys. Particles that contain metals, such as copper and iron, are the most likely to persist, he said. Unlike other atmospheric free radicals, PFRs can linger in the air and travel great distances.

Once PFRs are inhaled, Dellinger suspects they are absorbed into the lungs and other tissues where they contribute to DNA and other cellular damage. Epidemiological studies suggest that more than 500,000 Americans die each year from cardiopulmonary disease linked to breathing fine particle air pollution, he says. About 10 to 15 percent of lung cancers are diagnosed in nonsmokers, according to the American Cancer Society. However, Dellinger stresses additional research is necessary before scientists can definitely link airborne PFRs to these diseases.

Poor water quality continues to pose a major threat to human health. Diarrheal disease alone amounts to an estimated 4.1 % of the total DALY global burden of disease and is responsible for the deaths of 1.8 million people every year (WHO, 2004). It was estimated that 88% of that burden is attributable to unsafe water supply, sanitation and hygiene and is mostly concentrated on children in developing countries.

The millennium goals for 2015: (saving lives on the cheap)

* halving the proportion of people without sustainable access to improved water supply;
* halving the proportion of people without sustainable access to both improved water supply and improved sanitation.

The results of this analysis point out that achieving the target for both water supply and sanitation would bring economic benefits; US$1 invested would give an economic return of between US$3 and US$34, depending on the region.

6 million deaths could be avoided by stopping the use of Tobacco.


Technology for helping Reduce Deaths

A set of 15 proteins found in urine can distinguish healthy individuals from those who have coronary artery disease (CAD), a new study has found. Coronary artery disease is the most common type of cardiovascular disease, occurring in about 5 to 9% (depending on sex and race) of people aged 20 and older.

Researchers from Imperial College in London, England, isolated the receptor in the lungs that triggers the immune overreaction to flu.

The flu kills 250,000 to 500,000 people in an average year with epidemics reaching 1 to 2 million deaths (other than the Spanish flu which was more severe

Cost effective disease prevention



PLEASE read this full article at NextBigFuture and if time permitting here is 48 page world Health Organization study on current technology interventions to reduce road deaths and injury


This report is VERY encouraging considering the USA has increased Life Expectancy and deaths

The preliminary number of deaths in the United States for 2007 was 2,423,995, representing a decrease of 2,269 from the 2006 total. The crude death rate of 803.7 per 100,000 population was 0.83 percent less than the rate of 810.4 per 100,000 in 2006. The estimated age-adjusted death rate, which accounts for changes in the age distribution of the population, reached a record low of 760.3 per 100,000 U.S. standard population, 2.1 percent lower than the 2006 rate of 776.5. illustrates the pattern of decline in both crude and age-adjusted death rates from 1980 through 2007. In 2007, age-adjusted death rates decreased from 2006 by 2.1 percent for males and by 2.2 percent for females.

All of the sex, race, and Hispanic origin groups described in this report showed significant decreases in the age-adjusted death rate in 2007 from 2006...

No doubt we can bring the same prosperity to all nations...

The $34 Billion dollar Energy and Water Letter

...the Senate bill, S. 1436 (pdf), would provide $27.4 billion to the Energy Department, $5.4 billion to the Army Corps of Engineers and $1.1 billion to the Interior Department's Bureau of Reclamation.

The amendment picture was not clear at press time, however a coalition of environmental groups was pressing for changes they say are necessary to protect fish and wetlands near the Mississippi River in Missouri.

In a July 23 letter (pdf), the groups urged Senate leaders to remove two bill riders that would shift $3.9 million from a fish restoration project in southern Missouri to the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project, a flood control program.

OUCH...

Other funding levels include $4.9 billion for the Office of Science, $761 million for nuclear energy programs, about $700 million for fossil energy programs, and $5.76 billion for cleanup of DOE nuclear sites.

The bill's report language (pdf) also includes language that says lawmakers expect DOE to suspend a fee the nuclear industry pays to the federal government to remove and permanently store nuclear waste (E&E Daily, July 21).

Continue reading at New York Times

News Week - Global Warming Doom Viewpoint

News Week - It’s Too Late to Stop Global Warming

The last time world leaders talked about halting global warming, in Kyoto in 1997, they lacked a consensus by a vote of 95–0, eliminating any chance that the United States, then the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, would take a leadership role. And China, soon to become the biggest emitter, was exempt from having to make painful cuts. As we move toward new talks in December in Copenhagen, the key players seem to be engaged for the first time. In the United States, the Waxman—Markey bill, which aims to aggressively cap and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, has passed the House and is awaiting action in the Senate. The big worry now is that the planet may not adhere to the diplomatic timetable.

At issue is the balance between two natural phenomena. One is beneficial: as carbon-dioxide levels in the air rise, plants grow more quickly, absorbing more carbon in return. Scientists can measure this in the lab, but they don't know how much more fertile the new, carbon-enhanced environment will be for plants.

The other is "a monster in the dark," says Stephen Pacala, an environmental scientist at Princeton. As temperatures rise, permafrost, which holds an enormous amount of carbon from long-dead plants, tends to dry out, allowing decay and a release of carbon into the atmosphere. If this phenomenon, called "outgassing," were to kick in, it could inundate the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, perhaps doubling or tripling the effect of the past century of human industry.

Outgassing is one of the "dangerous anthropogenic warming" effects that the Copenhagen summit is trying to head off. Nobody knows for sure what might trigger it, Meanwhile...As politicians negotiate and the rest are rising quickly at the poles, the north polar ice cap is in retreat, permafrost is showing of us feel good about driving hybrids and using fluorescent bulbs, our fate may be riding on an obscure contest between plants and permafrost. read more at News Week

Cap-and-Trade: Almost $8 Billion in Administrative Costs?

More grist for the argument over the cost of starting a cap-and-trade program in the U.S.:
Simply expanding government agencies to handle all their new responsibilities will cost about $7.5 billion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

USA Today reported today on the study, which was issued in June in answer to the House Energy Committee's request for cost estimates on the global-warming bill. (The relevant bits are on pages 29 and 32.)

The CBO concluded that a lot of federal agencies will have a lot more work to do, which will cost a lot of money. The Waxman-Markey bill "would require federal agencies to undertake a variety of rulemakings, conduct studies and assessments, prepare reports, and carry out other activities related to new programs authorized under the bill," the report found. Plus, other agencies would have to run the programs to allocate and auction off carbon-emssions permits.

Read full from Wall Street Journals Keith Johnson

Haase -
Is this on top of the 1.9 Trillion?
Yep.

Worlds first carbon capture plan fails biblically

The Guardian reports: It was meant to be the world’s first demonstration of a technology that could help save the planet from global warming – a project intended to capture emissions from a coal-fired power station and bury them safely underground. But the German carbon capture plan has ended with CO2 being pumped directly into the atmosphere, following local opposition at it being stored underground.

From Climate Progress
As I explained a year ago, “CCS has four fundamental problems that have reduced enthusiasm for it recently and limited its likely role“:

* Cost: This is the biggest problem, and it hasn’t gotten better (see Harvard stunner: “Realistic” first-generation CCS costs a whopping $150 per ton of CO2 — 20 cents per kWh!).
* Scale: We need to put in place a dozen or so clean energy “stabilization wedges” by mid-century to avoid catastrophic climate outcomes — see “How the world can (and will) stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm: The full global warming solution (updated)” For CCS to be even one of those would require a flow of CO2 into the ground equal to the current flow of oil out of the ground. That would require, by itself, re-creating the equivalent of the planet’s entire oil delivery infrastructure, no mean feat.
* Permanence and transparency: If Putin’s Russia said it was sequestering 100 million tons of CO2 in the ground permanently, and wanted other countries to pay it billions of dollars to do so, would anyone trust them? No. The potential for fraud and bribery are simply too enormous. But would anyone trust China? Would anyone trust a U.S. utility, for that matter? We need to set up some sort of international regime for certifying, monitoring, verifying, and inspecting geologic repositories of carbon — like the U.N. weapons inspections systems. The problem is, this country hasn’t been able to certify a single storage facility for a high-level radioactive waste after two decades of trying and nobody knows how to monitor and verify underground CO2 storage. It could take a decade just to set up this system.
* Timing: As Howard Herzog of MIT’s Laboratory for Energy and the Environment said last year, “How can we expect to build hundreds of these plants when we’re having so much trouble building the first one?“

Stuart Haszeldine, a CCS expert at the University of Edinburgh, warned of the danger of opposition towards CCS snowballing into a “bandwagon of negativity” if too many early projects were rejected. “Once you’ve screwed up one or two of them, people are going to think ‘if they rejected this in Barendrecht, there must be a reason’,” he said.

People should think of CCS as a post-2025 solution (at best), worthy of R&D and demonstration funding, especially for projects that include biomass cofiring.

But we need massive deployment of low-carbon technology now, however, and that means efficiency, conservation, recycled energy, natural gas, wind, solar PV, concentrated solar thermal with storage, geothermal, biomass... read full at Climate Progress


Update
And China calls CCS just too expensive...

Is China getting cold feet about clean coal? It certainly sounds that way. Bloomberg reports:

"Carbon capture and storage, particularly for China is not one of the priorities–the cost is an issue," [said Su Wei, director-general of the climate-change unit at China's National Development and Reform Commission] in an Aug. 4 telephone interview from Beijing. "If we spent the same money for CCS on energy efficiency and the development of renewables, it would generate larger climate-change benefits."

Wow. Even though so-called clean coal is still embryonic, there's increasing consensus in the U.S. that making it viable is crucial to meeting emissions goals and keeping the lights on.

That's doubly true for China, where coal is a bigger-and much faster-growing-part of the energy mix. In fact, MIT recently argued that China must not only build new clean-coal plants, but retrofit existing coal plants at great expense if the world is to have any hope of curbing greenhouse-gas emissions.

And the idea that China must embrace clean coal has become a staple of U.S. policy as well, from vice president Joe Biden's famous rope-line comments during the campaign to Energy Secretary Steven Chu's more recent pronouncements. In fact, China and the U.S. just agreed to cooperate on clean-coal research.

Even with China's big push on low-carbon electricity sources-especially renewables and nuclear power-coal will still account for at least 60% of its electricity in 2020.

If carbon capture and storage is simply too expensive to handle the challenge, will "cleaner" coal have to do the trick? And what will that mean for global efforts to rein in greenhouse-gas emissions?

Nuclear Future is going to mars NOT U.S.

NASA is producing a safe, reliable, compact liquid metal cooled fission reactor.
The problem, we are sending away from the planet that needs it....

While this is a piece surrounding problems and solutions to off earth energy, much of the context and solutions apply here on earth..

Technology Review:

Researchers at NASA and the Department of Energy recently tested key technologies for developing a nuclear fission reactor that could power a human outpost on the moon or Mars. The tests prove that the agencies could build a "safe, reliable, and efficient" system by 2020, the year NASA plans to return humans to the moon.

Generating power: A power-conversion unit consisting of two Stirling engines, sitting opposite each other, is set up for testing at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. Pumped liquid metal is used to transfer heat from the reactor to the engines, where it is converted to electricity.

A fission reactor works by splitting atoms and releasing energy in the form of heat, which is converted into electricity.
 The idea for using nuclear power in space dates back to the late 1950s, when they were considered for providing propulsion through Project Orion. In the 1960s a series of compact, experimental space nuclear reactors were developed by NASA under the Systems Nuclear Auxiliary Power program. But public safety concerns and an international treaty banning nuclear weapons in space stopped development.


The new nuclear power system is part of a NASA project started in 2006, called Fission Surface Power, that is examining small reactors designed for use on other planets. While nuclear power remains controversial, the researchers say that the reactor would be designed to be completely safe and would be buried a safe distance from the astronauts to shield them from any radiation it would generate.

The recent tests examined technologies that would see a nuclear reactor coupled with a Stirling engine capable of producing 40 kilowatts of energy--enough to power a future lunar or Mars outpost.

"We are not building a system that needs hundreds of gigawatts of power like those that produce electricity for our cities," says Don Palac, the project manager at NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, OH. The system needs to be cheap, safe, and robust and "our recent tests demonstrated that we can successfully build that," says Palac.


"They are very efficient and robust, and we believe [it] can last for eight years unattended," says Lee Mason, the principal investigator of the project at Glenn. The system performed better than expected, Palac says, generating 2.3 kilowatts of power at a steady pace.

Read full at technologyreview

EPA Accelerates Green Innovation with EcoCar Competition

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has joined the EcoCar consortium of government, industry and academic leaders dedicated to advancing clean, efficient automotive technology.

The consortium hosts EcoCar,The Next Challenge, a three-year competition among 17 universities in the U.S. and Canada to redesign and reengineer a 2009 Saturn VUE to further minimize fuel consumption and emissions. In addition to EPA, major sponsors include U.S. Department of Energy, California Air Resources Board, Environment Canada and General Motors.

As part of the sponsorship, EPA will provide mentoring, technical advice, and dynamometer emissions testing on competition vehicles at EPA’s lab in Ann Arbor, Mich. EPA will also serve as a competition judge.

More information on EcoCar: www.ecocarchallenge.org

Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste, (DSW)

On August 13, 2009, the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration (Advocacy) submitted a comment on possible revisions to the 2008 final rule regarding Environmental Protection Agency’s Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste (DSW).

Re:  Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste, Notice of Public Meeting and Request for Comments, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0315, 74 Fed. Reg. 25200 (May 27, 2009).

A copy of Advocacy's letter can be found at
www.sba.gov

PETA Compares Fat Women to Whales - Ouchh

The Huffington Post
I understand obesity is a massive problem and strain on our nation but after PETA's deadliest year ever I think they should focus on a little more compassion and support.

Yet drama is what PETA does best.

...the implication is that being a vegetarian will automatically make you lose weight. That’s just as ignorant and misleading as this ad.

Suggestion slogan to PETA - How about 'have a heart and save yours by going vegetarian'

But I forget PETA is in it for 'organizational awareness funding' NOT results.

Read full at Huffington Post

Let me understand this... It is O.K. to exploit silicon and botoxed injected and fat women for a cause? And kill animals as long as it is done without pain?

Look I totally get the whole don't eat meat and kill things. I just don't understand how hypocrisy, exploitation or hate can persuade people to make better choices?

I suppose it is the difference between activism and positive influence.

Coming Age of Permanent Drought

Heart of Dryness: James G. Workman new book follows the spread of dryness across continents and through time to outline a grim common destiny of climate change and permanent water scarcity.

"We don't govern water," he writes. "Water governs us," and the lack of it will tear us apart if we fail to learn from survivors of millennia in dry lands: people like the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert Game Reserve in Botswana, a small nation sandwiched between South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe.

So, what can we learn from the Bushmen?
They can teach us how to live within nature's strict limits and how to conserve not just our water, but our own energies as well. Qoroxloo's stillness in the desert heat conserves her own sweat - the almost Zen wisdom of inaction. It's easy to make analogies as our own energy crisis deepens, energy and water conservation collide. The biofuel panacea turns out to be a water-guzzling nightmare, while the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta's giant water pumps are the state's biggest guzzlers of electricity.

...invisible hand: the libertarian faith that localized water markets are the answer...
This is simplistic at best and economic folly at worst.

Read more: sfgate.com

See full image at flickr

Best of both fuels Diesel Gas Mix For Efficiency

NextBigFuture
 What if an engine could be programmed to harvest the best properties of both diesel and gasoline fuel sources at once, on the fly, by blending the fuels within the combustion chamber? Based on tests by the University of Wisconsin-Madison engine research group would be a diesel engine that produces significantly lower pollutant emissions than conventional engines, with an average of 20 percent greater fuel efficiency as well. These dramatic results came from a novel technique Reitz describes as "fast-response fuel blending," in which an engine's fuel injection is programmed to produce the optimal gasoline-diesel mix based on real-time operating conditions.

28 page pdf presentation on "Improving Fuel Efficiency with Fuel-Reactivity-Controlled Combustion"

Under heavy-load operating conditions for a diesel truck, the fuel mix in Reitz' fueling strategy might be as high as 85 percent gasoline to 15 percent diesel; under lighter loads, the percentage of diesel would increase to a roughly 50-50 mix. Normally this type of blend wouldn't ignite in a diesel engine, because gasoline is less reactive than diesel and burns less easily. But in Reitz' strategy, just the right amount of diesel fuel injections provide the kick-start for ignition.

Reitz estimates that if all cars and trucks were to achieve the efficiency levels demonstrated in the project, it could lead to a reduction in transportation-based U.S. oil consumption by one-third.

The engine operates at much lower combustion temperatures because of the improved control — as much as 40 percent lower than conventional engines — which leads to far less energy loss from the engine through heat transfer. Second, the customized fuel preparation controls the chemistry for optimal combustion. That translates into less unburned fuel energy lost in the exhaust, and also fewer pollutant emissions being produced by the combustion process.

The best results achieved 53 percent thermal efficiency in the experimental test engine. This efficiency exceeds even the most efficient diesel engine currently in the world — a massive turbocharged two-stroke used in the maritime shipping industry, which has 50 percent thermal efficiency.

The United States consumes about 21 million barrels of oil per day, about 65 percent (13.5 million barrels) of which is used in transportation. If this new blended fuel process could convert both diesel and gasoline engines to 53 percent thermal efficiency from current levels, the nation could reduce oil consumption by 4 million barrels per day, or one-third of all oil destined for transportation.

The Syracuse team expects that the implementation of their concept—which is patented will enable:
* Near complete combustion of diesel fuel and recovery of up to 50% of the exhaust heat;
* elimination of ~80% of criteria pollutants and a significant reduction of the air thermal impact;
* downsizing (smaller combustion chambers for the same torque and power);
* minimizing the parasitic pumping of large excess air; and the elimination of after-treatment systems

Please read full from nextbigfuture

Global Warming ate my data - Inconvenient data

The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.

The CRU has refused to release the raw weather station data and its processing methods for inspection - except to hand-picked academics - for several years. Instead, it releases a processed version, in gridded form. NASA maintains its own (GISSTEMP), but the CRU Global Climate Dataset, is the most cited surface temperature record by the UN IPCC. So any errors in CRU cascade around the world, and become part of "the science".

Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data. Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:

Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

Read full from The Register


‘I’m a natural scientist. I’m out there every day, buried up to my neck in sh**, collecting raw data.... One of the things that so irks him about modern environmentalism is that it is driven by people who are ‘too wealthy’. ‘When I try explaining “global warming” to people in Iran or Turkey they have no idea what I’m talking about. Their life is about getting through to the next day, finding their next meal. Eco-guilt is a first-world luxury. It’s the new religion for urban populations which have lost their faith in Christianity. The IPCC report is their Bible. Al Gore and Lord Stern are their prophets.’

Scientific American this month also goes over this 'massive problem:
“We were too naive,” admits Walt Meier, a researcher at the center. “We weren’t prepared for how closely people were watching.” The science community knows that such adjustments happen all the time, he says, but “the undermining of public confidence in our data comes from ignorance of use.”

Read full "Stumbling Over Data: Mistakes Fuel Climate-Warming Skeptics" at Scientific American

CPSC to Enforce New CPSIA Requirements for Children's Products Effective August 14

On August 14, 2009, new requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) will take effect that are aimed at making children's products safer and increasing consumer confidence in the marketplace. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is educating domestic and overseas manufacturers, importers, and distributors of children's products and other consumer goods of these important new safety requirements.

The requirements that become effective on August 14 include: (from Section 103. Tracking Labels for Children's Products)

    * Lead Content - in children's products drops from 600 parts per million (ppm) to 300 ppm. (except electronics) that is accessible to children.

    * Lead in Paint and Similar Surface Coating Materials - for consumer use drops from 600 ppm to 90 ppm. 

    * Civil Penalties- increase substantially to a maximum of $100,000 per violation and up to a maximum of $15 million for series of violations.

    * Tracking Labels - Manufacturers must place permanent distinguishing marks (tracking label) on any consumer product primarily intended for children 12 and younger made on or after August 14, 2009.

    * Catalog Advertising - Advertising for certain toys and games intended for use by children from three to six years old must have warnings regarding potential choking hazards to children younger than three.

 

Visit CPSC's Web site at www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/cpsia.html for more information about the agency's implementation of the CPSIA.

Link VIA Shirl Kennedy DocuTicker

"Cash for Clunkers" is paying 10 times the "sticker price"

'Cash For Clunkers' Program Is Expensive Way To Cut Carbon Emissions, Expert Argues

 

ScienceDaily (Aug. 15, 2009) — New UC Davis estimates say the federal government's "Cash for Clunkers" program is paying at least 10 times the "sticker price" to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

While carbon credits are projected to sell in the U.S. for about $28 per ton (today's price in Europe was $20), even the best-case calculation of the cost of the clunkers rebate is $237 per ton, said UC Davis transportation economist Christopher Knittel.

 

"When burned, a gallon of gasoline creates roughly 20 pounds of carbon dioxide. I combined that known value with an average rebate of $4,200 and a range of assumptions about the fuel economy of the new vehicles purchased and how long the clunkers would have been on the road if not for the program,"

 

"In the end, the lowest cost to remove one ton of carbon from the environment was $237. More likely scenarios produced a cost of more than $500 per ton, even when we accounted for reductions in pollutants other than greenhouse gases. That suggests the Cash for Clunkers program is an expensive way to reduce carbon."  On the web: University of California Energy Institute

First Report from New Nuclear Energy Standards Group Released

Source: National Institute of Standards and Technology

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) have published a report on the inaugural meeting of the Nuclear Energy Standards Coordination Collaborative (NESCC), a new ANSI Standards Panel, co-chaired by NIST and ANSI, to address the current and future standards needs of the nuclear energy industry.

Based on applications and communications received by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), more than 30 new nuclear power reactors are expected to be under construction by 2020. In addition, more than 100 existing reactors must be re-licensed—including an assessment of the integrity of the reactor core after 50 years of operation. Because it has been more than 25 years since a new nuclear power reactor has been constructed in the United States, material science and construction techniques have changed substantially, and many of the construction codes and techniques and documentary standards of the past century need to be updated. New and advanced nuclear reactor designs, for example, require standards in areas such as fire protection, seismic requirements, and graphite-core support structures.

The NESCC was formed to address these needs. In addition to NIST and ANSI, the panel is supported by the NRC, the Department of Energy (DOE) and more than 30 private sector standards development organizations, professional societies and industry associations. Full Report

Thanks for summary and link Shirl Kennedy of DocuTicker.com

U.S. could "virtually run out of sugar"

Think food prices are high today? See you in the fall...

Wall Street Journal

Food Firms Warn of Sugar Shortage
Some of America's biggest food companies say the U.S. could "virtually run out of sugar" if the Obama administration doesn't ease import restrictions amid soaring prices for the key commodity.

In a letter to Agriculture Secretary Thomas Vilsack, the big brands -- including Kraft Foods Inc., General Mills Inc., Hershey Co. and Mars Inc. -- bluntly raised the prospect of a severe shortage of sugar used in chocolate bars, breakfast cereal, cookies, chewing gum and thousands of other products.

The companies threatened to jack up consumer prices and lay off workers if the Agriculture Department doesn't allow them to import ...

Update
Sugar is still proving to be the commodity of the year. With futures contracts now at 22 cents a pound, the sweet stuff is up 88% this year, to a 28-year high. Brazil, the world’s biggest sugar producer, is struggling with wet weather and diverting much of the crop yield to ethanol production. India, the world’s second biggest producer, is strapped with exceptionally dry weather. And just like that -- poof, supply shortages.

A coalition of U.S. food manufacturers has already begged the USDA to ease import quotas, saying in a letter that without such deregulation, “consumers will pay higher prices, food manufacturing jobs will be at risk and trading patterns will be distorted.”

“Sugar is certainly going to go much, much higher....

Political - Scientist: Steven Chu (Chinese Rockstar?)

Drawing the line from TIME:
"What the U.S. and China do over the next decade," declared Energy Secretary Steven Chu, the Nobel Prize – winning physicist who is leading President Obama's push for a clean-energy economy, "will determine the fate of the world." - Chu

Chu had gone to Beijing's Tsinghua University, the "MIT of China," to make his half-apocalyptic, half-optimistic pitch about climate change... Chu methodically explained that the science is clear, that we're boiling the planet — but also that science can save us, that we can innovate our way to sustainability. He acknowledged that the developed nations that made the mess can't tell the developing world not to develop, but he also warned that China is on track to emit more carbon in the next three decades than the U.S. has emitted in its history; that business as usual would intensify floods, droughts and heat waves in both countries; that greenhouse gases respect no borders.

This earth, he concluded, is the only one we've got; it would be illogical and immoral to fry it. "Science has unambiguously shown that we're altering the destiny of our planet," he said. "Is this the legacy we want to leave our children and grandchildren?"

It was a tough message to deliver to the Chinese — basically, "Do as we say, not as we did" — but it's hard to imagine a more credible messenger.

It's not just that Chu is a Chinese American whose parents both graduated from Tsinghua before attending the real MIT or that he's the most qualified leader ever at the Department of Energy (DOE) — which is a bit like being the most likable character ever on NYC Prep. It's also that Chu is the kind of scientific savant the Chinese revere, a techno-geek who scored a Nobel for developing methods of cooling atoms to a few millionths of a degree above absolute zero, who shelved his quantum-physics career to try to save the planet but on weekends still tries to cure cancer with lasers. "In the U.S., rock stars and sports stars are the glamour people. In China, it's scholars," Chu told me during his trip to Beijing. "Here, Nobel laureates are the equivalent of Britney Spears."

That's one reason Chu's message doesn't resonate all that well with Americans. They ranked global warming last in a national survey of 20 top priorities; in a global poll, only 44% of them wanted action to be taken on the issue, vs. 94% of Chinese. Most Republican leaders flatly reject prevailing climate science, while many Democrats from coal, oil and farm states are equally protective of the fossil-fuel status quo. This is why the American Clean Energy and Security Act — a far-reaching Democratic bill that would cap carbon emissions — has been marketed to a confused public on the basis of issues that poll far better: gas prices, foreign oil and green jobs. It narrowly passed the House, but it's in trouble in the Senate, and the President, while supportive, is now preoccupied with health care. (Read "Getting Your Slice of the Cap-and-Trade Pie.")

Chu will be America's first Clean-Energy Secretary — a job that's part green evangelism, part venture capitalism and part politics.

He's perfect for parts one and two. The fate of the world, in Chu's calculation, hinges on part three.

Read - The full TIME article here

Act proposes $30 billion in loans to clean energy manufacturers

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) is proposing a bill that would lend $30 billion dollars to American small and medium sized manufacturing companies who specialize in clean technology. The bill would make American manufacturers a player in the clean technology market which faces stiff overseas competition. It is estimated that 70% of the components for clean technology (much of which was invented in America) are made abroad. So far, 150 businesses have come out and endorsed the Senator’s legislation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Old ideas reborn for future

"Lost" Solar House Reborn as 3 Megawatt Air Force Solar Installation

In the 1970’s, the U.S Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs hosted a comprehensive research project on home solar retrofits.  The idea was to improve energy efficiency in Air Force housing, which at the time numbered over 150,000 units.  The lessons learned from the model solar home were soon buried when popular tastes turned to energy-hogging McMansions.  But now, 30 years later, solar power has come full circle.  The Academy is set to build a 3MW solar installation that will dwarf the earlier pilot project, providing solar energy not just for one home but for up to 7% of the entire educational complex.

Please read full By Tina Casey at Reuters (Via cleantechnica)

He is right - Cap-and-Trade's Creator a strong Critic

You would think they would listen to the guy who started it?

JS online 'Cap-and-Trade's Unlikely Critics: Its Creators'

Economists Behind Original Concept Question the System's Large-Scale Usefulness, and Recommend Emissions Taxes Instead

In the 1960s, a University of Wisconsin graduate student named Thomas Crocker came up with a novel solution for environmental problems: cap emissions of pollutants and then let firms trade permits that allow them to pollute within those limits.

Now legislation using cap-and-trade to limit greenhouse gases is working its way through Congress and could become the law of the land. But Mr. Crocker and other pioneers of the concept are doubtful about its chances of success. They aren't abandoning efforts to curb emissions. But they are tiptoeing away from an idea they devised decades ago, doubting it can work on the grand scale now envisioned.

"I'm skeptical that cap-and-trade is the most effective way to go about regulating carbon," says Mr. Crocker, 73 years old, a retired economist in Centennial, Wyo. He says he prefers an outright tax on emissions because it would be easier to enforce and provide needed flexibility to deal with the problem.

Mr. Crocker, who went on to become a professor at the University of Wyoming, is one of two economists who dreamed up cap-and-trade in the 1960s. The other, John Dales, who died in 2007, was also a skeptic of using the idea to tame global warning.

"It isn't a cure-all for everything," Mr. Dales said in an interview in 2001. "There are lots of situations that don't apply."

Mr. Crocker sees two modern-day problems in using a cap-and-trade system to address the global greenhouse-gas issue. The first is that carbon emissions are a global problem with myriad sources. Cap-and-trade, he says, is better suited for discrete, local pollution problems. "It is not clear to me how you would enforce a permit system internationally," he says. "There are no institutions right now that have that power."

Europe has embraced cap-and-trade rules. Emissions initially rose there because industries were given more permits than they needed, and regulators have since tightened the caps. Meanwhile China, India and other developing markets are reluctant to go along, fearing limits would curb their growth. If they don't participate, there is little assurance that global carbon emissions will slow much even if the U.S. goes forward with its own plan. And even if everyone signs up, Mr. Crocker says, it isn't clear the limits will be properly enforced across nations and industries.

The other problem, Mr. Crocker says, is that quantifying the economic damage of climate change -- from floods to failing crops -- is fraught with uncertainty. One estimate puts it at anywhere between 5% and 20% of global gross domestic product. Without knowing how costly climate change is, nobody knows how tight a grip to put on emissions.

"Once a cap is in place," he warns, "it is very difficult to adjust." For example, buyers of emissions permits would see their value reduced if the government decided in the future to loosen the caps.

"This allows your local polluter to merely buy credits elsewhere and continue polluting while passing his costs on to you."

Please read full from JSonline


Also The OilDrum has some helpful and current hints on subject:
The Case for a Carbon Tax to Control Climate Change (Part I)

Cap-and-trade is very complicated and little understood by the public, creating an ideal environment for horse-trading by special interests.

The Case for a Carbon Tax to Control Climate Change (Part II)

In contrast to cap-and-trade, carbon usage fees are relatively transparent, making it harder for greenhouse gas-producing interests to finagle sweetheart deals at the climate’s expense.

Equally important: A carbon-based tax addresses people’s resistance to bearing additional costs directly.

U.S. oblivious to next oil shock , missed forecast and lost control over our energy prices.

The OilDrum has really tied typical hard to read articles together linking what appears to be the obvious ignorance to the next oil shock with incomplete forecasts  that will give our country little control over our energy prices. And now that GM has the electric messiah they are agreeing that "The price of oil is going to go up."

Quotes from The Drum
ignorance to the next oil shock Currently the oil price is around US$70 a barrel - in the midst of the deepest post-war recession on record. Just four years ago today's "depressed" price would have been a record high.

Robert Hirsch is an energy consultant to the US Department of Energy. His studies of the link between past oil shocks and global GDP suggests there is roughly a one to one ratio - ie, for every 1 per cent decline in global oil production, there is a commensurate 1 per cent fall in global GDP.

Where do we think oil will be trading when economic recovery and oil demand returns? The price may be volatile but the trend will be ever upwards. Have we learnt the lesson that global Gross Domestic Product is inextricably linked to cheap and abundant oil? As prices rise, global GDP falls.

If Jeff Rubin and the IEA are correct, we are moving into a relentless cycle of economic shocks triggered by oil restraint and ever-increasing oil prices.

What are the implications a return to triple-digit oil prices?
...do we continue the current myopic "business as usual - cheap oil forever" scenario?
Will it take oil prices reaching US$150 or US$200... I wish it were not so, but I fear the ostrich-like denial will continue through several more price shocks and recessions.

New battery could change world, one house at a time

In a modest building on the west side of Salt Lake City, a team of specialists in advanced materials and electrochemistry has produced what could be the single most important breakthrough for clean, alternative energy since Socrates first noted solar heating 2,400 years ago.

The prize is the culmination of 10 years of research and testing -- a new generation of deep-storage battery that's small enough, and safe enough, to sit in your basement and power your home.

It promises to nudge the world to a paradigm shift as big as the switch from centralized mainframe computers in the 1980s to personal laptops. But this time the mainframe is America's antiquated electrical grid; and the switch is to personal power stations in millions of individual homes.

Former energy secretary Bill Richardson once disparaged the U.S. electrical grid as "third world," and he was painfully close to the mark. It's an inefficient, aging relic of a century-old approach to energy and a weak link in national security in an age of terrorism.

Taking a load off the grid through electricity production and storage at home would extend the life of the system and avoid the expenditure of tens, or even hundreds, of billions to make it "smart."

The battery breakthrough comes from a Salt Lake company called Ceramatec, the R&D arm of CoorsTek, a world leader in advanced materials and electrochemical devices. It promises to reduce dependence on the dinosaur by hooking up with the latest generation of personalized power plants that draw from the sun.

Solar energy has been around, of course, but it's been prohibitively expensive. Now the cost is tumbling, driven by new thin-film chemistry and manufacturing techniques. Leaders in the field include companies like Arizona-based First Solar, which can paint solar cells onto glass; and Konarka, an upstart that purchased a defunct Polaroid film factory in New Bedford, Mass., and now plans to print cells onto rolls of flexible plastic.

The convergence of these two key technologies -- solar power and deep-storage batteries -- has profound implications for oil-strapped America.

"These batteries switch the whole dialogue to renewables," said Daniel Nocera, a noted chemist and professor of energy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who sits on Ceramatec's science advisory board.

"They will turn us away from dumb technology, circa 1900 -- a 110-year-old approach -- and turn us forward."

"What we're talking about is the ability to take the edges off," Hunter said. "We're at a tipping point for alternative energy."


"But it's all about cost and reliability."

Read full at The Daily Hearld

Ouch... G8 climate scorecards rigged by WWF & Allianz

Next Big Future is Reporting through Thorium Forum that  G8 climate scorecards from WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature and Allianz have rigged numbers

WWF does not consider nuclear power to be a viable policy option. The indicators “emissions per capita”, “emissions per GDP” and “CO2 per kWh electricity” for all countries have therefore been adjusted as if the generation of electricity from nuclear power had produced 350 gCO2/kWh (emission factor for natural gas). Without the adjustment, the original indicators for France would have been much lower, e.g. 86 gCO2/kWh.

WWF - World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland and Allianz SE, Munich, Germany. Any reproduction in full or in part of this publication must mention the title and credit the above-mentioned publisher as the copyright owner.







More accurate numbers for CO2 by energy source.
world Resources Institute has an online searchable interface to the IEA numbers on CO2 by country and region and does not appear to have been manipulated.



Countries do the best on CO2 for energy that have a high percentages of energy from hydroelectric, geothermal and nuclear power.

The IEA report on world energy for 2008 in pdf form


Read full with detailed charts at Next Big Future

Wind Power Makes Electricity Cheaper in Texas

Tom Benning of Wall Street Journal reports that wind power in Texas may actually making electricity cheaper.
.. The idea is that wind power is steadily replacing more expensive forms of power generation, essentially natural gas.

The more wind power there is—and Texas is the sixth-biggest wind power country in the world–the less need there is to turn to gas-fired turbines to cover the last bit of demand. Bernstein figures this trend will only accelerate in the next few years:

    [A]t hours of relatively low power demand, it will no longer be necessary to dispatch high cost gas fired generators to meet the prevailing load; rather, the system’s wind, nuclear and coal fired power plants will be sufficient to meet demand. As power prices are set by the variable cost of operation of the last unit dispatched, wind can have a material impact on the price of power.

Granted, that’s at times of low power demand. Wind power works best when it’s not much needed—at night. During the day, when electricity demand is highest, wind power is much less productive. That’s doubly true in the summer months, when wind power’s output is the lowest.

What’s that mean for power production in Texas? For starters, consumption of natural gas will probably fall further, Bernstein says: “The growth of wind power in ERCOT over the next three years will markedly lower the consumption of gas and coal by conventional generators.” With a natural-gas supply glut already looming, that would probably push natural-gas prices down even further.

And wind power’s growth will hurt certain utilities, Bernstein estimates: Energy Future Holdings (formerly TXU), NRG Energy and PNM Resources are “most at risk” of falling margins in their traditional generation business.

More G.M. VOLT dreams and hype from Bob Lutz

I find it interesting that "Mr. VOLT", Bob Lutz who publicly called global warming a "total crock of sh*t" has been the national campaign lead leader for the 'next green car' Chevy VOLT. Now GM is claiming that the VOLT will get 230 mpg in the slashdot article below. I wonder who is spilling a "total crock of sh*t". At $40,000 I do hope the volt can pull this off. That way it will only take 20 years for the MPG fuels saves to cover the upfront enormous $15K price over the competition.

Compare a VOLT to Prius over time at $5 a gallon

MPG	Gallon	Year	3	5	10	20
230	5.000	217	652	1087	2174	4348
60	5.000	833	2500	4167	8333	16667
		-616	-1848	-3080	-6159	-12,319

slashdot - "General Motors, emerging from bankruptcy, today announced that its upcoming plug-in hybrid vehicle, the Volt, will have an EPA rating of 230 mpg for city driving (about 98 km/L). The unprecedented rating, the first in triple digits, is the result of a new (draft) methodology for calculating the 'gas' mileage for vehicles that operate primarily or extensively on electricity. The Volt, due out late next year, can drive approximately 40 miles on its Li-Ion battery pack, after which a gasoline engine kicks in to provide additional electricity to charge the battery. Running off the gasoline engine yields approximately 50 mpg. Of course, the devil's in the details, because the conversion of grid-based electricity to gasoline-mileage is imprecise."

Math hurts, as it is reality based- Haase


Update:
CNN agrees with Haase?
You won't save enough on fuel costs to compensate for the likely higher sticker price.




And then the truth comes out:
GM admits Volt doubts

General Motors has cast doubt over the long-term future of the Chevrolet Volt by claiming it may not be commercially viable and other rivals may overtake it with superior and more advanced technology.

GM submitted a regulatory filing report to the US Treasury yesterday and CEO Fritz Henderson claimed its “disclosures are consistent with our commitment to remain transparent and to keep the public informed of our progress”.

Patient safety focus could 85,000 lives and $35 billion a year.

In contrast to the high-tech tests and procedures that many experts blame for staggering increases in the nation’s health care costs involve fundamentals as simple as practitioners consistently washing their hands, sufficiently tending to patients to prevent bed sores, and following simple safety checklists to prevent infections and complications stemming from operations.

The report, “Back to Basics,” analyzed the results of scientific studies of treatment protocols for chronically recurring, avoidable medical errors.

Aside from the tragedy of needless deaths and injuries, the financial toll of failing to follow accepted safety procedures is astounding. Severe pressure ulcers cost an average of $70,000 apiece to treat. A catheter infection costs $45,000. Each instance of ventilator-associated pneumonia costs $5,800. Collectively, avoidable surgical errors cost an estimated $20 billion a year, bed sores $11 billion and preventable adverse drug reactions $3.5 billion. Full Report

Thanks Shirl Kennedy DocuTicker

MENA - Sustainable train wreck phases out food for water...

...water, food, infrastructure needs, energy and the growth in non-U.S. trade.

“Middle East and North Africa (MENA) is one of the fastest-growing regions in the world. Over the last 50 years, MENA's population is up more than fourfold. And the population is still young, with the majority of the population under 25 years old. Over the next 30 years, MENA's population will grow more than 60%, to nearly 700 million people. Trade there is expanding just as quickly.

“The most interesting thing about this growth is that it is happening in a part of the world where it is most difficult to grow food. Water is scarce. MENA consumes far more water than it gets via rainfall. In some places, the disparity is dramatic. In Kuwait, for instance, annual water consumption is 22 times annual rainfall. No wonder the whole area is a net importer of food.

“The Middle East is actually the world's largest regional importer of food. Egypt, for instance, actually imports more wheat than China. The GCC countries -- or gulf coast countries -- will import 60% of their food by 2010. And it's likely to get worse. Saudi Arabia aims to phase out wheat production by 2016 to conserve water.

“enormous investment in food and water resources to feed and slake the thirst of all these people. And we'll need all of the infrastructure and burn all of the hydrocarbons that come with that growth.” - Daily Problem I Reckon

GM bails out on polluted sites sticking tax payers with environmental liabilities...

Detroit Free Press: "GM's unusual, government-engineered bankruptcy allowed the Detroit automaker to emerge as a new company — and to shed billions in liabilities, including claims that governments had against GM for polluting. Environmental liabilities estimated at $530 million were left with the old GM, which has only $1.2 billion to wind down. Administrative fees and other claims will soak up that money, and state and local officials told the Free Press they fear the cleanups will be shortchanged.. The New York Attorney General's Office, seeking to protect environmental claims for cleanup at Massena and other sites, argued that federal and state regulatory requirements should not be eliminated by a bankruptcy sale.

How bankruptcy can affect environmental cleanups

What typically happens in bankruptcy?
Generally, in a traditional Chapter 11 reorganization, governments with environmental claims against a company become like other claimants seeking payment. Governments' ability to place liens on property gives claims added leverage in that process, allowing more money to go to cleanup efforts, according to John Pottow, an expert in bankruptcy law at the University of Michigan.

What happened here?
General Motors, in Chapter 11 reorganization, was allowed to sell most of its properties to the new GM, leaving behind unwanted properties that contain environmental liabilities estimated at $530 million. Motors Liquidation Co. -- the old GM -- has $1.2 billion to wind down the unwanted assets, operations and liabilities.

What if GM had gone out of business?
If GM had liquidated the entire company, the environmental claims would have been treated like any other claim. Assets would have been sold to pay debts at a reduced rate.
If the property still required cleanup, the government would have to do it and likely would impose a lien that could inhibit developers from buying the land, much like the situation expected for some of GM's unwanted properties.

What happens with Superfund?
The Superfund cleanup process is a federal program that allows the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to clean up hazardous waste and make responsible parties either perform the cleanup or pay for it.

Related articles

• N.Y. town fumes at what GM left behind -- 8/7/09
• GM gets to dump its polluted sites -- 8/7/09

Water Scarcity Looms for over a BILLION

Water scarcity grows in urgency in many regions as population growth, climate change, pollution, lack of investment, and management failures restrict the amount of water available relative to demand.

The Stockholm International Water Institute calculated in 2008 that 1.4 billion people live in "closed basins"-regions where existing water cannot meet the agricultural, industrial, municipal, and environmental needs of all.

Their estimate is consistent with a 2007 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) calculation that 1.2 billion people live in countries and regions that are water-scarce.

And the situation is projected to worsen rapidly: FAO estimates that the number of water-scarce will rise to 1.8 billion by 2025, particularly as population growth pushes many countries and regions into the scarcity column.

Water scarcity has many causes. Population growth is a major driver at the regional and global levels, but other factors play a large role locally. Pollution reduces the amount of usable water available to farmers, industry, and cities. The World Bank and the government of China have estimated, for instance, that 54 percent of the water in seven main rivers in China is unusable because of pollution. In addition, urbanization tends to increase domestic and industrial demand for water, as does rising incomes-two trends prominent in rapidly developing countries such as China, India, and Brazil.

Water Scarcity Figures
(tables below and read more at www.worldwatch.org):

Table 1. Water Import Dependence, Selected Countries, 1997-2001

Country	Water Import Dependence (percent)	Country	Water Import Dependence (percent)
Netherlands	82	Egypt	19
Jordan	73	United States	19
United Kingdom	70	Australia	18
Japan	64	Russia	16
South Korea	62	Indonesia	10
Germany	53	Brazil	8
Italy	51	Thailand	8
France	37	China	7
Spain	36	Argentina	6
Mexico	30	Pakistan	5
South Africa	22	Bangladesh	3
Canada	20	India	2

Source: Chapagain and Hoekstra, Water International, March 2008.

 

Table 2. Water Required to Produce Selected Foods

Product	Embedded Water Content (cubic meters per ton)
Beef	13,500
Pork	4,600
Poultry	4,100
Soybean	2,750
Eggs	2,700
Rice	1,400
Wheat	1,160
Milk	790

Source: World Water Council.

Table 3. Water Consumption by Energy Type in the United States

Energy Type	Water Consumed  (cubic meters per megawatt-hour)
Solar	0.0001
Wind	0.0001
Gas	1
Coal	2
Nuclear	2.5
Oil	4
Hydropower	68
Biofuel (first generation)	178

Source: Morrison et al.

Complete trends will be available with full endnote referencing, Excel spreadsheets, and customizable presentation-ready charts as part of our new subscription service, Vital Signs Online, slated to launch this fall.