Solar Power - Home Made Energy Secrets

Did you know you can save money on electricity bills if you build your own solar power home system? Prices are heading one way, up and with the earth's natural resources becoming ever scarcer, energy prices are not going to come down any time soon.

With the right information and a small initial investment you could generate solar power at home. You could either build your own home solar panels or if you have a little bit more to spend, assemble a solar kit. With the right know-how you should be able to complete the project on a budget of $300 or less.
However, the first thing you need to check is whether or not there is enough sun for solar power. Home features such as a large roof or wall sidings help with mounting the solar panels, but the main thing you should check is to see if your house gets a generous amount of sun all day. There should not be any features like large trees or buildings obscuring sunlight during the day. If your roof doesn't get enough sun, you could mount them in your back yard.

A professionally installed system for solar power at home can cost upwards of $20,000. This is unfeasible because even if you saved $1000 a year on energy bills, it would take you 20 years before you recouped the cost of your initial investment! There is another way, your own solar power at home can be generated on an investment of $300 or less, if you build your own units.

If you choose to buy a solar kit, then be aware that the price can be very different depending on who you go to. Some suppliers sell the same solar kit, but at prices that are wildly different, so shop around for the best deals. You should aim to spend between $300 and $500. Buying equipment that is too cheap will give you a solar panel that is just that, cheap and will require a lot of maintenance and upkeep. What matters most is recouping your investment so reliable home solar panels are important. You will not save if the panel breaks down a lot but neither do you want to spend so much money it takes years to recoup the cost.

What is important is getting the right information, so make sure you fully understand the blueprint or ebook you purchase on building home solar panels. The components should be easily available from local hardware stores and there may be one or two specialized components you may have to mail order, but these should not be expensive, nor should the solar cell be difficult to assemble. If your home solar panel guide comes with videos, all the better, it is far quicker to learn from a video when someone is showing you what to do.

Home solar panels generate useful and clean energy for as long as the solar panel lasts, a good few years. If you're looking to save money, a reduction of 80% on your electricity bill is possible, and you might even make some money if you generate more power than you need. You can sell this back to the power grid.

There really isn't a better time to generate your own solar power at home. Components are cheap, and there's a lot of very useful know-how out there to help you assemble and install your own solar cells for free and clean energy.

DIY Solar Roof Panels Save You Money

Electricity bills keep going up, and electricity is something that all of us wish we could save more of, to give us a bit more cash. However, there's only so much you can cut back on before you start causing your families inconvenience and discomfort. You can supplement the energy you use by installing solar roof panels, so you could both save money and keep your standard of living at the same time.

Retail home solar panels used to cost in the region of $20,000, an investment that even the most environmentally-conscious of homeowners would have considered unfeasibly expensive. Solar technology has developed over the recent years, and DIY solar roof panels are now practical for the home. You can build efficient solar panels that produce enough energy to make good savings. You'll be saving money and tapping the sun, the most abundant source of free energy that we mankind has available right now.

There are many guides to building solar roof panels these days, and it is the existence of this information that is responsible for empowering the homeowner to build, install and use his or her own solar roof panels. The components for them can be found in hardware stores so ordinary people can now start generating energy for themselves.

In principle, all you have to do is draw up a list of required materials and simply follow the step-by-step assembly process to put it all together. It's a great family project as you can get the children involved, and is tremendously satisfying when you see the power it generates actually being used to power your home appliances. Whilst you should not need any engineering expertise to complete the project, you will be on a learning curve so planning it out in advance is both wise and will save you the trouble of the odd mistake.

My advice would be to plan the project out, make a list of all your components and makes sure that you understand how they all combine to produce your solar roof panel. Then shop around for those components on either eBay or your local hardware store. You should be able to get all your components for less than $300. Once you've got the solar panel installed and it is generating power, all you need to do is save about $30 a month for it to pay you back your entire investment in less than a year.

What is amazing is that the guides available for home solar roof panels allow you to build ones that are almost as effective and efficient as commercially available panels at a price that is almost insignificant when compared to the amount you will save over the months and years following its installation. With your first solar panel you will be able to power one or two appliances such as your kettle or your mobile phone chargers. By building more and more solar panels, you will eventually be able to power larger appliances at home, and might even be able to supplement your home's entire energy usage and sell electricity back to the grid.

The best part of installing your own home solar roof panels is the fact that you'll be saving money and also saving the environment by reducing the CO2 that is being released into the atmosphere.

Reduce Your Electric Bill With These Simple Straightforward Tips!

Here are a variety of tips to reduce your electric bill. Remember, nothing will happen unless you take action!

First, the energy hogs: COOLING and HEATING your home.

Insulation is key for avoiding a big energy loss out the window. When there is no one at home the thermostat should be adjusted to take into consideration that the temperature in the home is less crucial to comfort.

Furnace filters have to be clean for maximum efficiency.

Kitchen and bathroom exhaust fans should be turned off, whenever you are finished with them.

Close the fireplace damper tightly to avoid the loss of up to 20% of the air out the chimney every hour.

The water heater is another huge energy waster. Insulating the pipes is a worthwhile investment. There are tank-less water heaters on the market now. What they do is to heat the water "on demand," in other words they provide an unlimited supply of hot water whenever it would be required. There is no holding tank to waste all that energy.

Taking a shower instead of a bath will save about 4-5 gallons of water.

Using a dishwasher for a full load of dishes actually saves another 4-5 gallons of water, compared to washing them by hand.

Fix leaking faucets! A one drip a second loss equals 2,300 gallons a year!

Do the laundry using cold water; it will save a huge amount of electricity. Just use the soap designed for cold-water washing. Do several loads in a row, (for the dryer) because a warm dryer uses less power.

Around the house there are a lot of little things that you can do to reduce your electric bill.

Use a microwave oven instead of a conventional one. They draw less than half the electricity, and cook food in a quarter of the time of regular ovens. If you do use a conventional oven, turn it off 20 minutes before removing the food so that the residual heat will not be wasted, and it will keep cooking even with the oven turned off. Resist the temptation to open the oven door to check on food, because each time you do that 25 percent of the heat is lost each time.

One should replace incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent ones whenever possible. These are huge energy savers.

Learn to read the meter, because you will see the immediate effect of your saving efforts and it will be a great motivator! Those meters are read from right to left, it seems backwards but that's the way they do it.

Some structural modifications can be done to save power, such a attic insulation, and the color of the roof.

The refrigerator and freezer coils should be cleaned once in a while.

Replace old appliances with efficient power saver types.

There are many ways to reduce your electric bill if you look around your home. In the long run, even small changes and improvements will add up to substantial savings. The entire community will benefit if there is cooperation with the neighbors in this matter.

Why Drinking Bottled Water is Bad for You and the Environment

find that a lot of people don't like or just don't trust the water that comes out of their tap. So instead of drinking that tap water, they spend a lot of their hard earned money on bottled water. You might say it still costs money to drink water from the tap but really it's only a few extra pennies on the water bill. If you're one like me who drinks tap water instead of bottled water, you can save quite a bit of money a year and also save the environment from hundreds of plastic bottles that don't get recycled.

Every state has a water treatment plant that ensures your tap water is safe to drink. The only problem with this though is what the water picks up through the pipes on the way to your home. You'll find that some pipes are pretty old and can add rust and bacteria to your drinking water.

To solve this problem, you use a water purifier like a Brita filter or a Pur filter. The Brita filter comes in a pitcher where you just fill it with tap water and it's purified via the installed filter. The Pur filter, on the other hand, can be easily installed on the your faucet itself to filter the water as it comes out of the tap. You do, however; need to change these filters every 1 to 3 months which will cost you around $100 a year.

So what about bottled water?

Maybe you bought that bottled water because of it's label telling you it's clean, spring water or water from an untouched sacred stream, but that's really not the case. The truth is that many of these bottled water companies get their water from the same place you do, from municipal water plants.

As with anything else you buy, you should check out the label for what you're really paying for. If the label says "purified," it probably came from the municipal water supply.

Aquafina, who is owned by Pepsi, is bottled at the Pepsi plant using purified municipal water. Same goes with Dasani, who is bottled by Coke, but they add a few minerals and a bit of salt to make you thirsty for more.

So what are you getting with bottled water? The same stuff you could be getting from home with a purified water treatment pitcher or filter.

If you're wondering what you can carry around in your backpack instead of bottled water, stainless steel bottles are a great option. I really like my Klean Kanteen bottle. It's one of the very first companies to put stainless steel bottles on the market. This family owned company even donates 1% of their profit to environmental causes. I think they really do make the best stainless steel bottle out there.

Tapped, a new documentary about the bottled water industry, goes behind-the-scenes to show the effects of this industry on our health, climate change, pollution and our reliance on oil. It's an eye-opening view of how bottled water has negatively impacted our environment.

So the next time you decide to drink bottled water, think about the money you spend, the impact you have on the environment and how much better off you and the earth will be by drinking from the tap.

Environmental Pollution

Environmental pollution is contamination of air, water and land from man-made waste. Pollution leads to depletion of the ozone layer, global warming and climate change. Air pollution is the release of chemicals and particles into the atmosphere. Water pollution includes surface runoff, leakage into groundwater, liquid spills, wastewater discharge and littering. If toxins are spilled on the ground or if an underground storage tank leaks, soil can become contaminated. Well known contaminants include herbicides and pesticides. Toxic waste is waste material, often in chemical form, which pollutes the natural environment and contaminates groundwater.

News analysis: U.S., China cooperation crucial to slowing climate change

China and the United States must now cooperate like never before to slow the pace of climate change, experts say.

Indeed, China and the U.S. need to reach an agreement in December at the Copenhagen climate talks on how to slow greenhouse gas emissions and transition to low-carbon sources of energy, some experts said.

Given China's basic conditions and the international norms, the Chinese government has always insisted on the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" established by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

"China and the United States are different in their stages of development, national conditions and historic footprints, so I think they should shoulder different responsibilities in tackling climate change," said Zhang Guobao, president of China's National Energy Administration.

Despite those differences, the two nations signed an agreement at last week's U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue calling for deeper ties on clean-energy technology.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised the accord and said it would serve as the foundation for a new global treaty.

"We cannot ignore that the atmosphere was positive and there's a willingness to take this discussion to the next level," said Julian L. Wong, senior policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, a Washington, D.C.think tank.

That means hammering out a decisive plan of action, Wong said.

"China and the U.S. need to come to an agreement on strategy," he said. "Hopefully they will come up with something before Copenhagen."

Rodger Baker, director of East Asia analysis at Stratfor, a global intelligence company, said the two sides will have to make some sort of compromise. That, he said, may include allocating funds and technology for carbon capture -- an approach to reducing global warming by capturing carbon dioxide from large sources such as power plants.

U.S. Democratic Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, praised China's investment in alternative energy, which is second only to green-minded Germany.

Kerry said last month that China "must not emulate our energy past" by overlooking the environment in favor of industrial development.

China has a right to develop its economy "but we ask that they do so in a way that does not represent the mistakes that the U.S. has made in the past," Kerry said.

Meanwhile, Kerry said, the United States must pass new climate legislation at home. It remains unknown whether Congress will pass a bill by December but Kerry said "we will keep working until we have the votes."

"I don't think a global deal is impossible without (U.S. domestic) legislation," Wong said. "But if there is no vote (before December) it could send a negative message to the world."

Wong thought sharing technology is crucial to slowing climate change.

Indeed, China is calling for more technology transfers from the United States, something Kerry said Washington would work toward achieving.

"If the U.S. is willing to engage fully with China in bilateral cooperation or joint research and development, it will mean a transfer of technological assistance," he said.

Last month's launch of a joint research project to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles and buildings may be a precursor for future efforts, he said.

In spite of a modest 15 million dollar budget, the effort is an important symbolic gesture, Wong said.

"It's a first step, but a lot more needs to happen. Those ideas in joint research need to be fleshed out and they need to decide how they will develop jointly," he said. "The world will be looking for more announcements along these lines."

Baker agreed there is much room for cooperation in the private sector. "Lots of companies want to get the jump on green technology and products and whoever can do this can get a competitive advantage," he said.

Joint ventures could occur in areas such as batteries for electric vehicles, for example. Later the Chinese might sell products such as energy-efficient light bulbs on the international market. Foreign firms will also want to bring those types of products to the Chinese market, which could lead to joint ventures, he said.

Whatever happens, Kerry said, the two nations must act quickly.

"We don't have much time," Kerry said while quoting Chairman Mao Zedong. The United States and China, he said, must "seize the day, seize the hour."

Climate change brews up trouble for coffee growers

How will climate change affect coffee production, and what should we do about it? Coffee is the world's most valuable tropical agricultural export — produced by about 20 million smallholder families — so these are important questions.

The weather outlook for coffee growers over the next millennium is poor: it will be hotter everywhere, with prolonged dry spells in many places, interspersed with very heavy rain.

Coffee grows well within a limited climatic range. As temperatures rise, so will coffee — to higher altitudes and latitudes. But space is limited and there will be competition with other crops. Coffee farmers will experience climate change through greater unpredictability, with more droughts and floods — the last thing any farmer wants.

Climate change already seems to be affecting coffee production. It is difficult to attribute direct causality, but the changes we are seeing are entirely consistent with climate modellers' predictions.

Sometimes the effects are slow. For example, 50 years ago, nearly three-quarters of Indian coffee production was the premium bean, arabica; now it is less than half, with robusta coffee (a species that withstands hotter conditions) filling the gap.

And sometimes the effects are abrupt. Mexico is still recovering from Hurricane Stan in 2005: "The land is very tired; it has faced hurricanes, winds, natural deterioration. Everyone here has a smaller harvest, less maintenance and less investment," Ingrid Hoffman, a coffee farmer in Chiapas, told Reuters in 2009. "I think one day we will be able to recover."

This outlook is typical. Local organisations and governments are making brave efforts to recoup losses and return to the way things were, and attribute their problems to acts of God.

But are they right to think like this? Climate models suggest that things will get worse — but few stakeholders, including governments, international organisations, farmers, traders, companies or standards setters seem to be thinking ahead, trusting the science, making strategic plans, zoning the land, adapting or diversifying.

Science should be guiding their decision-making. And the problem is not just with coffee — many countries face a similar crisis in agriculture and land-use resource planning and implementation.

Coffee's recent history reflects that of globalisation: the role of governments has been reduced and institutions downsized in the name of efficiency. The rationale was that efficient market-oriented initiatives would arise to supply any services they needed.

In a way, this has happened: nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) stepped in to assign new production norms enshrined in certifications that you find stamped on coffee packaging in most supermarkets.

This was a positive step that brought important social and environmental issues into the public domain through the Fairtrade Foundation and the Rainforest Alliance, for example. Coffee companies have followed, and substantial amounts of coffee are now certified under some form of sustainable label.

But these schemes focus mostly on farm-level issues without tackling larger scales of space and time. Climate change, however, cannot be adequately addressed at the micro-scale. Farming communities will need watershed-level projects to store water, improve disaster responsiveness and plan for new invasive pests and diseases, for example.

More adaptive, participatory research is needed to find out how best to help farmers, and there should be a greater emphasis on long-term research to develop crop varieties more resistant to climate extremes, pests and diseases. Neither NGOs nor private companies can hope to manage many such activities. And there is an unresolved paradox: sustainability is about imposing order and stability, whereas climate change is about adapting and transforming.

As the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman put it, globalisation is where everything is connected and nobody is in charge. And that highlights the weakness in the neoliberal agenda — global problems such as climate change cannot be solved by the invisible hand of the market.

So we find, towards the end of the first decade of the new millennium, that support institutions are weak and fragmented. Numerous standards-setters are competing for scarce donor funds and smaller certification fees, with little concerted response from the private sector.

There is no alternative but for governments to regain more influence over the fate of their agriculture. Brazil has shown the way with extensive modelling, leading to zoning schemes where farmers can obtain cheap credit for planting crops recommended by the models. It is now among the top three exporters for ten global commodities, including coffee.

With all our coffee beans in ever fewer baskets, the risk of price instability increases alongside the mounting risk of regional droughts, diseases and floods.

The coffee industry has been a world leader in advancing the cause of sustainability. Now it should take stock, pat itself on the back, and quickly move on to a concerted response to humanity's greatest challenge: tackling climate change.

Psychological barriers hobble climate action

Psychological barriers like uncertainty, mistrust and denial keep most Americans from acting to fight climate change, a task force of the American Psychological Association said on Wednesday.

Policymakers, scientists and marketers should look at these factors to figure out what might prod people take action, the task force reported at the association's annual convention in Toronto.

While most Americans -- 75 percent to 80 percent in a Pew Research Center poll -- said climate change is an important issue, it still ranked last in a list of 20 compelling issues such as the economy or terrorism, the task force said.

Despite warnings from scientists that humans need to make changes now if they want to avoid the worst effects of climate change, "people don't feel a sense of urgency," the association said in a statement.

Numerous psychological barriers are to blame, the task force found, including: uncertainty over climate change, mistrust of the messages about risk from scientists or government officials, denial that climate change is occurring or that it is related to human activity.

Other factors include undervaluing the risk. Even though an international study showed many people believe environmental conditions will worsen in 25 years, that could lead some to conclude that they don't have to make changes now.

Some people believe anything they do would make little difference and they therefore choose to do nothing.

Habit is the most important obstacle to pro-environment behavior, the task force found.

But habits can be changed, especially if changing saves money and people are quickly made aware of it. People are more likely to use energy-efficient appliances if they get immediate energy-use feedback, the task force said.

It identified other areas where psychology can help limit the effects of climate change, such as developing environmental regulations, economic incentives, better energy-efficient technology and communication methods.

Fake Outrage Hits Climate Change Debate

While Democrats have complained in recent days about supposedly "manufactured outrage" over health care reform proposals, evidence has emerged of blatantly inauthentic outrage over climate change legislation being discussed on Capitol Hill.

A lobbying firm indirectly hired by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy (ACCCE) has admitted sending fake letters, allegedly from real nonprofit organizations, to congressmen to protest climate change legislation, the New York Times reports.

ACCCE said in a statement that it is considering legal action against the responsible lobbying firm, Bonner & Associates.

"ACCCE has always maintained high ethical and professional standards," the statement said. "In this case, the standards and practices that we require for grassroots advocacy outreach were not adhered to by Bonner and Associates."

The ACCCE contracts out its "grassroots" efforts primarily to the consulting firm the Hawthorn Group, which in turn hired Bonner & Associates to create "outreach" against the climate change bill that passed earlier this year in the House of Representatives.

About a dozen fake letters were sent to Reps. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), Christopher Carney (D-Pa.) and Kathy Dahlkemper (D-Pa.). The letters were purported to be from local minority groups, including Albemarle-Charlottesville chapter of the N.A.A.C.P. -- a group that actually is in favor of the climate change legislation.

"We support making the environment cleaner, but the reason we are writing is that we are concerned about our electric bills," one letter said, the Times reported. "Many of our members are on tight budgets, and the sizes of their monthly utility bills are important expense items."

While the work conducted by Bonner & Associates did not go as planned for ACCCE, the group is continuing its aggressive efforts to make any climate change legislation Congress may finalize more clean-coal friendly.

The group will be running ads this month promoting its agenda over the radio, on billboards, online and probably on television in Democratic states, Politico reports. The group also reportedly plans to send teams to town hall meetings to question senators about the legislation.

The bill which passed in the House calls for a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020 from 2005 levels and an 83 percent reduction by 2050. The legislation aims to meet that goal by instituting a price on carbon emissions through a "cap-and-trade" system, which would enable industries to buy and trade permits that allow them to emit certain levels of carbon. About 85 percent of the permits would be given away, however. It also includes billions of dollars for carbon capture and sequestration -- or "clean coal" technology.

Some senators are interested in creating higher environmental standards in its own version of the legislation, but the competing interests that will be impacted make that a challenge, the Washington Post reports

Obama Invests Record $2.4 Billion in Electric Vehicles, Advanced Batteries

President Barack Obama today announced $2.4 billion in economic stimulus funding for 48 new advanced battery and electric drive projects, the single largest investment in advanced battery technology for hybrid and electric-drive vehicles ever made.

President Obama visited Navistar International Corporation in Elkhart to make the announcement. Navistar will receive a $39 million grant to manufacture electric trucks, which the company reports will ultimately will create or save hundreds of jobs when full scale manufacturing at the site begins. Overall, seven projects in Indiana will receive grants totaling more than $400 million.

"If we want to reduce our dependence on oil, put Americans back to work and reassert our manufacturing sector as one of the greatest in the world, we must produce the advanced, efficient vehicles of the future," said President Obama.

President Barack Obama addresses a crowd in Elkhart, Indiana. (Photo by Dan Horst)

Industry officials expect that this $2.4 billion investment, coupled with another $2.4 billion in cost share from the award winners, will result directly in the creation of tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. battery and auto industries.

Selected by the Department of Energy through a competitive process, the 48 projects are intended to accelerate the development of U.S. manufacturing capacity for batteries and electric drive components as well as the deployment of electric drive vehicles, helping to establish American leadership in creating the next generation of advanced vehicles.

The new awards include $1.5 billion in grants to U.S. based manufacturers to produce batteries and their components and to expand battery recycling capacity.

The funding covers $500 million in grants to U.S. based manufacturers to produce electric drive components for vehicles, including electric motors, power electronics, and other drive train components.

Another $400 million in grants will purchase thousands of plug-in hybrid and all-electric vehicles for test demonstrations in several dozen locations. The funding will be used to deploy them and evaluate their performance, to install electric charging infrastructure, and to provide education and workforce training to support the transition to advanced electric transportation systems.

Vice President Joe Biden and four members of the Cabinet, fanned out across the country to promote the stimulus announcement.

In Detroit, Biden announced over $1 billion in grants to companies and universities based in Michigan. Reflecting the state’s leadership in clean energy manufacturing, Michigan companies and institutions are receiving the largest share of grant funding of any state.

"For our nation and our economy to recover, we must have a vision for what can be built here in the future – and then we need to invest in that vision," said Biden. "That’s what we’re doing today and that’s what this Recovery Act is about."

Two companies, A123 and Johnson Controls, will receive a total of approximately $550 million to establish a manufacturing base in the state for advanced batteries, and two others, Compact Power and Dow Kokam, will receive a total of over $300 million for manufacturing battery cells and materials. Large automakers based in Michigan, including GM, Chrysler, and Ford, will receive a total of more than $400 million to manufacture thousands of advanced hybrid and electric vehicles as well as batteries and electric drive components.

And three educational institutions in Michigan, the University of Michigan, Wayne State University in Detroit, and Michigan Technological University in Houghton in the Upper Peninsula, will receive a total of more than $10 million for education and work force training programs to train researchers, technicians and service providers, and to conduct consumer research to accelerate the transition towards advanced vehicles and batteries.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu visited Celgard, in Charlotte, North Carolina, to announce a $49 million grant for the company to expand its separator production capacity to serve the expected increased demand for lithium-ion batteries from manufacturing facilities in the United States. Celgard estimates that hundreds of jobs could be created, beginning as early as this autumn.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson was in St. Petersburg, Florida to announce a $95.5 million grant for Saft America, Inc. to construct a new plant in Jacksonville on the site of the former Cecil Field military base, to manufacture lithium-ion cells, modules and battery packs for military, industrial, and agricultural vehicles.

Deputy Secretary of the Department of Transportation John Porcari visited East Penn Manufacturing Co., in Lyon Station, Pennsylvania, to award the company a $32.5 million grant to increase production capacity for their valve regulated lead-acid batteries and the UltraBattery, a lead-acid battery combined with a carbon supercapacitor, for micro and mild hybrid applications. East Penn Manufacturing is a third-generation family business with over 63 years in battery manufacturing.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke visited Kansas City, Missouri, to announce a $10 million grant for Smith Electric to build and deploy up to 100 electric vehicles, including vans, pickups, and their Newton brand of medium duty trucks.

In addition, Secretary Locke announced three other grants supporting manufacturing and educational programs in Missouri: a $30 million grant to Ford Motor Company supporting the manufacturing of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in Kansas City and in Michigan; a $73 million grant to Chrysler, for the manufacturing of 220 plug-in hybrid and electric pickup trucks and minivans in St. Louis and in Michigan; and a $5 million grant to Missouri University of Science and Technology in Rolla to fund educational and workforce training programs on advanced vehicles technologies

On the Fairway, New Lessons in Saving Water

Enlarge This Image

Cory Blair, left, Matt Corentin and Joe Hollis put out water catch cans for an irrigation audit at the Atlanta Country Club in Marietta, Ga., which uses several methods in its water strategy.

With emerald fairways that glistened even in the most blistering conditions, they were a tempting target.

Yet golf course managers were indignant. They argued that they were reining in water use in dozens of ways, like planting native grasses and auditing sprinkler spray patterns. Instead of being penalized, they said, they should be emulated.

It took a while, but from the South to the arid West, their wish is coming true. Mindful that global warming could provoke more and longer dry spells, state governments are increasingly consulting golf courses on water strategies.

In Georgia, golf course managers have emerged as go-to gurus on water conservation for both industries and nonprofit groups.

Marriott International is applying lessons learned at its golf course here to its resort properties in other states. Habitat for Humanity is landscaping front yards with drought-tolerant plants recommended by golf superintendents.

“Look, if you want to learn how to irrigate, these are the guys to ask,” said Garith Grinnell, who recently retired from the Southern Nevada Water Authority.

Such accolades are a turnabout for a business that is often faulted for harming the environment through excess use of water and pesticides.

In Georgia, the shift in perspective came about largely because of a crippling drought that peaked in 2007. By that year, 97 percent of the clubs that belonged to the Georgia Golf Course Superintendents Association had voluntarily adopted what are viewed as best-management practices for water use, reducing consumption, they estimated, by 25 percent in just three years.

Lake Lanier, Atlanta’s main source of water, had meanwhile dropped to record low levels, exposing muddy bottom not seen in half a century. It dawned on state and local water managers that golf courses might have some useful know-how.

Golfing grounds managers “are great technical assistance to me,” said Kathy Nguyen, president of the Georgia Water Wise Council, a state association of water professionals that encourages conservation. “I can call them up and talk to them about different technologies.” (Georgia’s drought eased significantly this year.)

Ms. Nguyen has relied on golf superintendents in drafting guidelines for homeowners like letting grass grow longer, fixing leaks in hoses as promptly as possible and keeping lawn mower blades razor sharp. (Grass cut by duller blades is more frayed and requires more water to stay healthy.)

The golf industry still draws strong criticism from environmentalists. Turf is, after all, the thirstiest of plants. The average American golf course drinks up some 50 million gallons of water a year — comparable to the yearly usage of 1,400 people. In the West, the figures are higher.

Yet that reality, coupled with rising water prices, is what led to strides like irrigating golf courses with “gray water,” or nonindustrial wastewater that is recycled for other purposes.

Tom Bancroft, chief scientist with the National Audubon Society, says that for all the progress golf has made, it remains a deeply problematic industry. Many courses “use fertilizers that can run off into fresh water, and many use pesticides in lawn and grass,” Mr. Bancroft said. (Audubon International, a separate group, works with golf courses to encourage wildlife preservation.)

Mark Esoda, superintendent of the Atlanta Country Club in suburban Marietta, where initiation fees are $85,000, acknowledges that practices among the nation’s courses range from indifferent to conscientious. But Mr. Esoda maintains that he and other superintendents have a lot to teach municipalities about watering their ball fields and homeowners about tending to their yards.

Zipping around the course on pine-shaded paths, Mr. Esoda stopped abruptly near the seventh hole. He gestured toward a patch of newly laid turf of zoysia, a warm-weather shade grass native to Southeast Asia and Australia. On shady parts of the course it is replacing fescue, a genus of cold-weather shade grass that can live through the winter and thus requires five months’ more watering and mowing.

Mr. Esoda said he had also installed affordable monitors that prevent automatic sprinklers from activating during or right after a rain.

And when isolated dry spots appear on the greens, he said, he sends staff members out with watering cans rather than turning on the sprinkler system.

Finally, Mr. Esoda has made an aesthetic adjustment after years of savoring the green glow of a perfect lawn. “Crispy around the edges is O.K.,” he confided.

Water is just one area where golf courses and environmentalists may find a rapprochement, said Anthony L. Williams, director of grounds at Marriott’s Stone Mountain public courses just outside Atlanta.

As metropolitan areas sprawl outward, golf courses may be the only large-scale green space for miles around, offering crucial potential habitat for migrating birds and other wildlife.

Mr. Williams, who has a degree in local horticulture, has been letting native grasses take over his lawns. Off the fairways he does not even bother to mow, and on the greens he is maintaining grass at one-sixteenth of an inch higher than typical courses. It makes playing slow, he allows, but “consistent.” He has also replaced all the flowering annuals with perennials, which generally require less water, choosing those that are attractive to native wildlife.

Since he took charge of the two courses in 2005, Mr. Williams has cut water consumption by 45 percent, he said, and witnessed the return of some wildlife species like the red-tailed hawk.

The changes have come with a price, like the occasional large brown spot on the fairway. But Mr. Williams says the golfers do not mind.

“I just stand out there on the greens and explain, ‘We are doing this so your grandchildren can come out here and play,’ ” he said. “People understand that.”

‘The Great Squeeze’ joins long list of doomsaying eco-films

The Great Squeeze, a documentary by director Christophe Fauchere (of 2007’s film Energy Crossroads), is full of such apocalyptic observations, none of which should surprise anyone even vaguely environmentally-minded.

The film is polished and put-together, chock-full of interviews with various professors and experts, and features powerful footage of displaced typhoon victims and third-world children picking through trash heaps. The problem with The Great Squeeze is that its subject matter is too broad, and its format and delivery are not unique enough to reach the legions of uninformed citizens who most need to hear what it has to say. Those of us inclined to pick up a documentary with the vague subtitle “Surviving the Human Project” are probably already on board with efforts to create a sustainable future. We don’t need more swelling, ominous music, staggering world population statistics, or haunting shots of belching oil refineries to convince us.

The Great Squeeze made some brief but interesting observations that I wish had been explored more deeply. It discussed the modern concept of progress, which has only barely begun to shift away from being defined by levels of consumption and convenience—barometers that developing countries have been monitoring for decades in an effort to emulate the American lifestyle. The film also touched on the fact that Americans have lost “the tragic sense of life”—that is, that our expectation of instant gratification has wiped away the truth that life contains loss as well as consumption, hard times as well as happy times, and that often pain and sacrifice are required of us before we can move to a better place.

For those balking at the idea of transforming our economy into a clean, green one, this is the message they need to hear. But I fear that The Great Squeeze, like so much environmental advocacy journalism before it, drowns this point with too many familiar images of bleached coral reefs and paddling polar bears. It’s no surprise to learn, then, that the production company, Tiroir a Films, is working hard to market the film to the academic community, where Energy Crossroads enjoyed some success, according independent producer Joyce Johnson.

Film Notes: The Great Squeeze was released in March. It won Best Long-Form Documentary at the Festival de Cine Ecologico y de la Naturaleza de Canarias (Spain) 2009. The producers are hoping to sign a broadcast deal with an independent channel and are focusing on distributing a version of the film tailored for academic settings.You can order a copy online.

Watch the film’s trailer:

Toyota Prius top-selling car in Japan for 3 months

Toyota's hugely popular Prius hybrid ranked as Japan's top-selling car in July, clinching the spot for the third consecutive month as tax breaks boosted sales of green vehicles, an auto industry group said Thursday.

The Japan Automobile Dealers Association said Toyota Motor Corp., the world's No. 1 automaker, sold 27,712 Prius cars in July, up 24 percent from June.

Sales of gas-electric hybrid cars have been surging in Japan despite the global auto slump, helped by government incentives such as making hybrid vehicles tax free.

"The government program is spurring demand for hybrid vehicles like the Prius. Strong sales of the Prius also reflected a trend that consumers were interested in eco-friendly products," said Kentaro Nakata, an association spokesman.

Toyota's rival, Honda Motor Co., also enjoyed brisk sales of the Insight hybrid. Japan's No. 2 automaker sold 10,210 Insight cars in July, up 16.3 percent from June.

The Insight, a hybrid marketed as a cheaper alternative to the Prius, held the No. 4 slot in July auto sales. Honda's popular Fit compact secured the No. 2 spot in July sales.

Toyota's Vitz subcompact, which is marketed overseas as the Yaris, came third in July auto sales, the association said.

Honda, meanwhile, Thursday brushed off claims in Japanese and overseas media that the Insight is a copycat of the Prius.

"We don't think it looks like the Prius at all," said Nobuki Ebisawa, managing director at Honda R&D Co., Honda Motor Co.'s research unit. "There may be some similarities in the roof line, but it is clearly different."

Ebisawa acknowledged considerations for maximizing aerodynamics and placing the hybrid system of electric motor and gas engine may make for similar styling in hybrids cars.

Any similarities between the Prius and Insight are coincidence, he said.