Set-top boxes in the U.S. consume 27 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity each year, equivalent to the annual output of six coal-fired power plants. Part of the reason is that they typically operate at nearly full power even during the two-thirds of the time when they are not in use. (Thinkstock)

We hear a lot about how much energy modern day flat screen TV sets consume, but the innocuous set-top boxes that drive them, along with their built-in digital video recorders, may be even more to blame. A recent analysis conducted by the consulting firm Ecos on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found that “the average new cable high-definition digital video recorder (HD-DVR) consumes more than half the energy of an average new refrigerator and more than an average new flat-panel television.” Overall, set-top boxes in the U.S. consume some 27 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. This is equal to the annual output of six average (500 megawatt) coal-fired power plants and accounts for the emission of 16 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

Part of the reason these boxes are such energy hogs is that they typically operate at nearly full power even during the two-thirds of the time when they are not actively in use driving TV screens or recording to built-in DVRs. “As a nation, we spend $2 billion each year to power these boxes when they are not being actively used,” reports NRDC.

To make matters worse, American consumers have little if any choice about which set-top boxes they get from their cable or satellite service providers. Since the providers usually own the boxes yet don’t have to pay consumers’ electric bills, they have little incentive to utilize or develop more efficient models. In Europe, Sky Broadcasting is beginning to distribute more efficient equipment to subscribers there. NRDC is urging the largest pay-TV service providers in the U.S. (Comcast, Time Warner, DirecTV, Dish Network, Verizon and AT&T) to heed the efficiency call with their own set-top box and DVR offerings.

Redesigning set-top boxes to power down when not in use is perhaps the biggest opportunity for energy savings. “Innovation to reduce power consumption when not in active use—such as has occurred with mobile phones, which also work on a subscriber basis and require secure connections—is sorely needed in set-top boxes,” counsels NRDC. Also, re-jiggering content delivery systems so that only one main set-top box sends signals to all the televisions in the house (or to lower power “thin client” boxes) could also cut down household electric bills and carbon footprints. The group adds that “better designed pay-TV set-top boxes could reduce the energy use of the installed base of boxes by 30 percent to 50 percent by 2020.”

Last year the U.S. government released new energy efficiency standards for set-top boxes within its EnergyStar appliance efficiency rating program. While this new specification is a step in the right direction, consumers have little knowledge about such options. NRDC urges pay-TV subscribers to request that their providers make available set-top boxes and DVRs that meet the newer EnergyStar 4.0 standards. The more of us that request such improvements, the likelier they are to happen. And the cable or satellite provider that can save customers money while reducing overall environmental impact may just win over an increasingly large sector of the American people that actually cares about being green.

CONTACTS: NRDC’s “Better Viewing, Lower Energy Bills, and Less Pollution,” www.nrdc.org/energy/files/settopboxes.pdf; EnergyStar, www.energystar.gov.

For the most part, companies offering energy audits are reputable and legitimate and will help you both save money and reduce your carbon footprint if you follow their advice in regard to upgrading things like insulation, windows and appliances. “A home energy assessment, also known as a home energy audit, is the first step to assess how much energy your home consumes and to evaluate what measures you can take to make your home more energy efficient,” reports the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). “An assessment will show you problems that may, when corrected, save you significant amounts of money over time.”

“During the assessment, you can pinpoint where your house is losing energy,” adds DOE. “Energy assessments also determine the efficiency of your home’s heating and cooling systems [and] may also show you ways to conserve hot water and electricity.”

You can conduct your own energy audit if you know where to look for air leaks (drafts), water waste and other key areas of a home’s inefficiencies. The DOE’s energysavers.gov website has guidelines to help homeowners conduct their own do-it-yourself home energy assessments. For instance, DOE recommends that homeowners make a list of obvious air leaks, such as through gaps along baseboards or at the edges of flooring and at wall and ceiling junctures. The potential energy savings from reducing drafts in a home can be as high as 30 percent per year, reports DOE. (The DOE website also provides information on other ways to save money and resources through less obvious things such as outdoor landscaping. It also posts guidelines for energy-efficient designing and remodeling.)

You should also check the filters on heating and cooling equipment to see if they need to be changed so as to keep your furnace and air conditioners functioning at maximum efficiency. And if these or other appliances over 15 years old consider replacing them with newer models that meet federal EnergyStar efficiency criteria. Also, swapping out older incandescent bulbs in light fixtures with higher efficiency compact fluorescent or LED bulbs will save money and energy.

A professional energy auditor with dedicated assessment tools and the knowledge of how to use them will in all likelihood carry out a more comprehensive assessment than you can do yourself. “Thorough assessments often use equipment such as blower doors, which measure the extent of leaks in the building envelope, and infrared cameras, which reveal hard-to-detect areas of air infiltration and missing insulation.”

If you are concerned about enlisting a for-profit firm that upsells its own energy efficiency upgrade services based on a “free” energy audit, check with your utility to see whether it offers unbiased, independent energy audit services (which it may do for free or for a nominal cost). The assessor from your utility may be able to recommend window and door replacement companies, heating and cooling specialists and other vendors nearby that do reputable work to make your home is not only energy efficient but warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer.

CONTACTS: DOE Energy Savers, www.energysavers.gov; EnergyStar, www.energystar.gov.

January 2012 marks the beginning of a planned phase-out of inefficient light bulbs in the United States that was signed into law five years ago by President George W. Bush. It was designed to reduce energy usage nationally from lighting by some 30 percent overall within three years. The benefits of the phase-out will be a savings of between $100 and $200 annually on electric bills in each American household—a total energy savings equivalent to the output of 30 large power plants—and reductions in global warming-inducing carbon pollution equivalent to taking 17 million cars off the road.

The first bulbs to disappear from store shelves are conventional 100 watt incandescents, but consumers can get compact fluorescent (CFL) or light emitting diode (LED) bulbs with similar light output instead. There are also some new more efficient incandescent bulbs that made the cut and will be available as replacements for conventional incandescents. In 2013, conventional 75 watt incandescents will be phased out, while conventional 60 and 40 watt bulbs will be phased out in 2014. Given the great alternatives available these days, most consumers will hardly notice any difference except lower electric bills.

As for what consumers should do to prepare themselves, the best advice is to get educated about the difference between power use and light output as we enter the brave new world of more efficient lighting. “Given the range of efficiencies the new bulbs provide, buying a bulb solely on the amount of power it uses no longer makes sense and we’ll have to shift to buying lumens,” reports Noah Horowitz of the Natural Resource Defense Council. “For example, a typical 60 watt light bulb produces around 800 lumens. The CFL that produces 800 lumens only uses 15 watts.” He adds that bulb packages will likely contain claims like “as bright as a 60 watt bulb” or “15W = 60W” to help consumers make the transition.

Horowitz adds that consumers looking to replace their old incandescents with new more efficient varieties should look for CFLs or LEDs marked as “warm white,” since the quality of light they give off will be most similar to that given off by old-school incandescents. “Those marketed as ‘cool white’ or ‘day light’ have much different light color, which only a small minority of consumers prefer,” says Horowitz.

Also, Horowitz warns that most CFLs are not dimmable and “may fail prematurely if installed in a dimming circuit.” So if your space features light sockets with dimming capability the best bet would be LED bulbs or newer more efficient incandescents. Specially marked dimmable CFL bulbs are also an option but at present are less commonly available.

As for whether to switch out your older incandescents with newer more efficient bulbs, the answer is maybe. According to Earth911, the leading source of information of how and where to recycle anything, consumers should consider the waste they will create by throwing out working albeit aging light bulbs. “If they aren’t spent, don’t trash them,” reports Earth911, adding that they can be used until they burn out—at which point more efficient bulbs can go in. Those who want to start saving energy now might consider donating older bulbs to local charities. Meanwhile, spent bulbs can be recycled. Earth911’s website can help find locations near you where old bulbs can be dropped off.

CONTACTS: Natural Resources Defense Council, www.nrdc.org; Earth911, www.earth911.com.

Recent experiments found that metal undergoes a never-before-seen transition when it is exposed to extreme pressures and temperatures, similar to those near Earth’s core.

Scientists at the Carnegie Institution for Science introduced Iron oxide to these conditions, and the metal was then able to conduct electricity.  Depending on the temperature, the metal has the ability to be a conductor or insulator. However, there were few changes in its structure, BBC reports.

These findings may affect our small understanding of Earth’s magnetic fields, although the implications are still inconclusive.

The scientists subjected the substance to temperatures up to 2,200C and 1.4 million times atmospheric pressure, according to BBC.

“Our new results show, instead, that iron oxide metalizes without any change in structure and that combined temperature and pressure are required,” said Ronald Cohen, a co-author of the study according to BBC.  “Furthermore, our theory shows that the way the electrons behave to make it metallic is different from other materials that become metallic.”

Iron Oxide and magnesium make up a lot of the Earth’s mantle, and these new results create an electric link between the mantle and the core, according to the new properties that Iron Oxide accepts under pressure and high temperature.  Therefore, scientists are able to peer a bit further into the magnetic field that radiates from the core .

Advocates of thorium to power nuclear plants say that the element is safer than uranium, and that its waste cannot -- like the plutonium waste of uranium fission -- be re-formulated for nuclear weapons. Thorium plants, they say, also wouldn't need containment domes like those pictured here because the reactors can't "melt down" and release radiation. (iStock)

Thorium, a naturally occurring radioactive element found in abundance in the Earth’s crust all around the world, might well be a better fuel source than uranium for nuclear power generation for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, just one ton of the silvery metal can produce as much energy as 200 tons of uranium or 3.5 millions tons of coal, according to Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia of the European Organization for Nuclear Research. Another advantage is that it comes out of the ground as a 100 percent pure, usable isotope. Unlike uranium, which contains only 0.7 percent fissionable material, thorium doesn’t require enrichment to be used in nuclear reactors. Also, the spent-fuel waste from thorium fission cannot be re-formulated for nuclear weapons like plutonium, the waste product of uranium-based fission.

Also, proponents say that thorium doesn’t require the high temperatures and mitigation equipment of uranium-based reactors. “The plants would be much smaller and less expensive,” Kirk Sorensen, a former NASA rocket engineer and now chief nuclear technologist at Teledyne Brown Engineering, told the UK’s Telegraph last year. “You wouldn’t need those huge containment domes because there’s no pressurized water in the reactor.” With no high temperatures, thorium reactors can’t “melt down” and release radiation.

“Once you start looking more closely, it blows your mind away,” adds Sorensen. “You can run civilization on thorium for hundreds of thousands of years, and it’s essentially free.” The advocacy-oriented Thorium Energy Alliance reports that there is “enough thorium in the U.S. alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years.”

Nuclear researchers in the U.S. first contemplated using thorium as a nuclear energy feedstock back in the 1940s, but its lack of feasibility in making nuclear weapons put it on the back burner, where it has sat for the last six decades despite various attempts to revive the technology for practical use. In Russia, China and India, thorium reactors represent the next generation of nuclear power. India possesses about a quarter of the world’s thorium reserves. The country is working to develop a network of large thorium-based reactors, and plans to meet 30 percent of its electricity needs with thorium by 2050.

Many nuclear advocates and environmentalists alike don’t see thorium as the savior its supporters make it out to be. For one, uranium is still relatively easy to come by and inexpensive, and the nuclear industry is set up to run on it. Changing over to thorium would be expensive, and who knows what unforeseen problems may arise with full-scale deployment. Perhaps most important, some analysts worry that putting more eggs into humanity’s nuclear basket will surely further delay the transition to a truly green economy that runs on clean renewable energy from the sun, wind and other so-called alternative sources.

CONTACTS: CERN, www.cern.ch; Thorium Energy Alliance, www.thoriumenergyalliance.com; Teledyne Brown Engineering, www.tbe.com.

As the future gets dimmer for traditional incandescent light bulbs, and compact fluorescents (CFLs) fall out of favor due to their toxic mercury component, light-emitting diodes, or LEDs, are beginning to come on strong. LEDs, which are clusters of small bulbs that come in many shapes and sizes, last five times longer than CFLs and 40 times longer than incandescents and use much less energy. (Media credit/Geoffrey Landis)

Just a decade ago, incandescent bulbs were just about the only game in town, despite their inefficient use of electricity to generate light and their primitive technology that had not changed since being invented some 125 years ago. But now that is all changing fast, with phase-outs of incandescents going on in Australia, Brazil, Venezuela, Switzerland and the European Union, with Argentina, Russia, Canada and the U.S. following suit shortly. The U.S. passed legislation in 2007 to increase the efficiency of light bulbs sold in the U.S. by 25 percent or more by 2014, and then by as much as 60 percent more by 2020.

For decades, those concerned with energy savings have been touting the benefits of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) over incandescents. CFLs use only one-fifth of the electricity of incandescents to generate the same amount of light, and they can last six to 10 times longer. But CFLs’ cooler color and inability to be dimmed have made them less desirable. Another hindrance to the widespread adoption of CFLs has been their higher cost (though most consumers would save plenty in energy costs over the life of a bulb). Also, CFLs contain mercury, a dangerous neurotoxin that is released when the bulbs break. And once CFLs do burn out they must be disposed of properly to avoid releasing mercury into the environment.

Given the issues with CFLs, LEDs (short for light emitting diodes) are beginning to come on strong. These highly efficient bulbs don’t generate heat like incandescents (which helps to keep air conditioning costs down as well) and can last five times longer than CFLs and 40 times longer than incandescents. Tiny LED bulbs have been around for years in specialized applications (such as stadium scoreboards), but lighting engineers got the idea to cluster them and use reflective casings to harness and concentrate their light for residential use. In recognition of the LED’s potential, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) set up a special “solid-state” (LED) lighting R&D program to hasten the advance of the technology.

In comparing the total cost to run three different types of 60-watt equivalent bulbs for 50,000 hours (factoring in the cost of the both bulbs and electricity), the EarthEasy website found that LEDs would cost $95.95, CFLs $159.75 and incandescents $652.50. The 42 incandescent bulbs tested used up to 3,000 kilowatt hours of electricity compared to 700 and 300 for CFLs and LEDs respectively. However, despite the savings most consumers are loath to spend $35 and up for an LED bulb (even though it will save more than $500 in the long run) when a traditional incandescent bulb right next to it on the shelf costs $1.

There are other newer technologies in the works. Seattle-based Vu1 now sells highly efficient bulbs based on its Electron Stimulated Luminescence (ESL) technology, whereby accelerated electrons stimulate a phosphor coating on the inside of the bulb, making the surface glow. One of Vu1’s 65-watt equivalent bulbs retails for under $20 and uses a similar amount of energy as an equivalent CFL. And incandescents aren’t out of the efficient lighting race altogether just yet. Top bulb makers recently released new versions that use as much as a third less electricity to operate (complying with 2012’s new federal standards) and are promising newer models still that will run on even less energy.

CONTACTS: DOE Solid-State Lighting Program, www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/; EarthEasy, www.eartheasy.com; Vu1 Corporation, www.vu1corporation.com.

LED Lights: Changing the world around you

If you haven’t noticed them yet, than chances are you are going to. LED lights are becoming more and more popular and are gradually being used in a variety of uses. This state of the art lighting technology is being utilized in both traditional auto lights as well as some intriguing and innovative custom mounted lighting. Despite the fact that many people still believe that LEDs are far more expensive than traditional lighting, these remarkable, small, and light weight bulbs are nearly the same price as most conventional bulbs, yet they come with some strikingly different features.

The fact is, LED lighting is a technology that is moving in remarkable directions. Already it is possible to get LED products that not just include automobile bulbs, but also accent lighting light strips, and there are LED lights that can now be bought as replacements for standard screw-in incandescent or the recent compact florescent bulbs.

There are many benefits to using the LED light, including long term cost and a reduction of energy expense. When using an incandescent bulb the energy cost over its life time will exceed the initial purchase price by 5 to 10 times. Compact fluorescent lights uses 75% less energy than standard bulbs, and last 6x longer. However, the LED light lasts 10 longer than the compact fluorescent and because they are solid and do not have filaments they are more durable. This stability will enable these lights to far out last any standard light available on the market. With the cost moving more in line with traditional lighting, and the additional durability and efficiency LEDs actually become a far cheaper alternative.

In addition to their cost, efficiency, and durability, these lights are also mercury free and do not cause the dreaded heat buildup. When using standard lighting there are some limitations regarding placement and usability with some materials, whereas LEDs enable you to have greater flexibility with design, color, and construction.

What some may also not realize as well is these lights are also capable of having some other amazing qualities besides illumination. If used properly some LEDs have the ability to be used for something as exotic as photo detection. Utilizing this aspect a product could be crafted such as an LED display that could feature a controlling display.

Although it has become a very popular bulb, and is beginning to be seen more in homes and contemporary flashlights, recently the most stylish way to use LED lights has been in creatively lighting automobiles. The flexibility and ease of use has contributed to a number of amazing and attractive uses from mood lighting inside your car, the futuristic glow from under a sports car, or giving your motorcycle a cool blue edge. As the cost continues to drop on these astonishing and versatile lights the world will no doubt begin to see more intriguing uses that will endlessly amaze us.

The environmental impact of so much online time really boils down to energy usage, which in turn affects the amount of greenhouse gases we pump into our atmosphere. Google, which has been carbon neutral since 2007, has been a real leader in the building of green data centers, even powering them with renewable energy. (Media credit/Jurgen Plasser via Flickr)

The environmental impact of so much online time really boils down to energy usage, which in turn affects the amount of greenhouse gases we pump into our atmosphere. For one, each of us can help by limiting computer time (whether surfing the ‘net or not) and shutting them down or putting them into sleep mode when we aren’t using them (this can be automated via the computer’s power management control panel).

Also, when shopping for a new computer, consumers and businesses alike can opt for models certified by the federal government as energy efficient with the Energy Star label. If all computers sold in the U.S. met Energy Star requirements, Americans could pocket $1.8 billion annually in saved energy costs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an amount equivalent to taking some two million cars off the road.

Individual responsibility aside, the creation and management of more efficient data centers by the major online hubs—especially as we enter the age of “cloud” computing whereby most of the software, content and services we look to our computers for resides online and is served to us as-needed—is what can have the biggest impact. Google, Facebook, and Amazon.com are already deeply committed to the cloud computing model, with Microsoft, Yahoo and others following suit accordingly.

For its part, Google has been a real leader in the building of green data centers, even powering them with renewable energy. The company recently released environmental footprint scores for several of its data centers. While the energy usage required to run its cloud services (Google Search, Google+, Gmail and YouTube) seems huge in the aggregate—it used 260 megawatt hours to power its data centers in 2010—it boils down to only 7.4 kilowatt hours worth of energy annually per user. Google reports that to provide an individual user with its services for a month uses less energy than leaving a light bulb on for three hours. And because the company has been carbon neutral since 2007, “even that small amount of energy is offset completely, so the carbon footprint of your life on Google is zero.”

In an April 2011 report entitled “How Dirty is your Data?” the non-profit Greenpeace examined energy sources for the 10 largest IT companies involved in cloud computing, finding Apple, Facebook and IBM especially guilty of getting significant amounts of power from coal-fired power plants. (Facebook had come under fire earlier this year when reporters uncovered that the company planned to buy electricity for its brand new eco-friendly data center in Prineville, Oregon—one of the greenest such facilities ever designed and constructed—from a utility that derives most of its power from coal.) Yahoo, Amazon.com and Microsoft scored best in use of renewable alternative energy sources for cloud services.

In the long run, analysts think that the widespread shift to cloud computing will be a great boon to the environment. A report released in September 2011 by Pike Research, “Cloud Computing Energy Efficiency,” predicts that because of the shift to cloud computing and increasing efficiencies, data center power consumption will decrease by 31 percent between 2010 and 2020.

CONTACTS: Energy Star, www.energystar.gov; Greenpeace, www.greenpeace.org; Pike Research, www.pikeresearch.com.

New efficiency requirements for light bulbs may sound the death knell for incandescents, which have not changed significantly since Thomas Edison invented them in 1879. Newer, more efficient styles cost more but could save consumers some $6 billion in annual energy costs by 2015 -- while also eliminating the equivalent of 30 large power plants' electrical output and 14 million cars worth of carbon emissions. (Media credit/Hemera Collection)

The Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act (H.R. 2417) was a failed attempt in July 2011 by some Republicans in the House to repeal a 2007 law mandating increased efficiency for light bulbs sold anywhere in the U.S. Sponsors of the bill cited the 2007 bulb efficiency requirements—whereby light bulbs must be 25 to 30 percent more efficient by 2014 and then as much as 60 percent more efficient by 2020—as a key example of how government overreaches its authority.

“The 2010 elections demonstrated that Americans are fed up with government intrusion,” said Representative Joe Barton, the Texas Republican who proposed the repeal. “The federal government has crept so deep into our lives that federal agencies now determine what kind of light bulbs the American people are allowed to purchase.” It’s ironic that the new standards were put in place by Republican President George W. Bush as part of his Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, a sweeping update of the country’s energy policy. At the time, the bill, including the provisions about light bulb efficiency, enjoyed widespread bi-partisan support.

The fact that the BULB Act couldn’t muster enough votes in the Republican-controlled House to pass by the required two-thirds majority shows that even many conservative lawmakers would rather have the country save money and energy than waste it unnecessarily on inefficient lighting. The repeal effort did garner 233 votes, but the 193 opposed were more than enough to override it given House rules.

Maryland’s Steny Hoyer, Democratic Whip in the House, derided the sponsors of the repeal attempt for focusing on the wrong priorities in these dire economic times. “By bringing misguided bills like this one to the floor instead of a comprehensive jobs plan, it is clear that House Republicans are still in the dark.”

Even the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and General Electric came out against repealing the increased efficiency standards, given the strides industry has made in recent years to roll with the punches and design more efficient bulbs, fixtures and electricity distribution methods.

Analysts wonder if the 2007 efficiency requirements will sound the death knell for incandescent bulbs, which have not changed significantly since first invented by Thomas Edison in 1879. While newer, more efficient styles of bulbs—from compact fluorescents (CFLs) to halogens to light-emitting diodes (LEDs)—may be significantly more expensive than their incandescent counterparts (by as much as a factor of 50!), consumers will likely make up the difference and then some over the long term as energy savings accrue. The Department of Energy estimates that the switchover to newer, more efficient bulbs will save American households upwards of $50 per year by 2015, or some $6 billion in the aggregate.

Besides saving money, the new standards will save the amount of electricity generated by more than 30 large power plants, according to the nonprofit Alliance to Save Energy (ASE). As for global warming, the new standards promise to save carbon emissions equaling the removal of 14 million cars off the road.

CONTACTS: H.R. 2417, thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2417:; ASE, www.ase.org.

Big earthquakes throw off vast amounts of energy, but fault lines run deep below the Earth's surface, so tapping into that energy would be a challenge way beyond what humans -- at least at present -- have the technological capability to achieve. Pictured: Port au Prince in the aftermath of the earthquake that rocked Haiti in January 2010. (Media credit/Marco Dormino/United Nations Development Programme)

While it is no doubt theoretically possible to generate electricity by harnessing the kinetic energy of shifting tectonic plates below the Earth’s crust, pulling it off from a practical standpoint would be a real logistical challenge—not to mention prohibitively expensive compared to harnessing other forms of energy, renewable or otherwise.

Big earthquakes throw off vast amounts of energy. According to Beth Buczynski of the CrispGreen website, researchers have calculated that the January 2010 magnitude 7.0 earthquake that killed upwards of 220,000 people in Haiti released as much energy as 31 of the atomic bombs the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. And the magnitude 9.0 earthquake that struck northeast Japan in March 2011 unleashed the equivalent of more than 15,000 Hiroshima bombs. That’s a lot of energy indeed.

“The total energy from an earthquake includes energy required to create new cracks in rock, energy dissipated as heat through friction, and energy elastically radiated through the earth,” reports the U.S. Geological Survey’s Earthquake Hazards Program. “Of these, the only quantity that can be measured is that which is radiated through the earth.” Likewise, only this radiated energy—which is what shakes buildings and is recorded by seismographs—could be harnessed given the dedication of enough resources and the proper implementation of the right technologies.

Just how to harness tectonic energy is the big question. One way would involve stringing quartz crystals, which can transfer electricity via piezoelectricity, underground along known fault lines. When tectonic plates shift, the crystals could transfer the energy they pick up to a grid-connected storage medium for later use. But this is hardly practical, for one because earthquakes rarely happen in a predictable manner let alone in the exact spots where energy harvesters would have set up their gear. Also, fault lines tend to run deep below the Earth’s surface, so laying down a network of quartz crystals would involve mining out shafts and connecting them underground on a scale way beyond what humans have done to the present.

Regarding why Japan is so reliant on nuclear power despite the tectonic risks is a matter of economics. Lacking the rich oil, coal and other energy reserves of many other nations, Japan relies on nuclear power for some 30 percent of its electricity. Prior to the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami, Japan was gearing up to boost its nuclear power reserves to account for half of its electricity needs by 2030. This increased reliance on nuclear power was set to play a big part in the country’s rollback of greenhouse gas emissions.

Prior to the earthquake and tsunami, the Japan Atomic Energy Agency had modeled a 54 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from 2000 levels by 2050, and a 90 percent reduction by 2100, with nuclear energy accounting for upwards of 60 percent of the country’s total energy mix. Now it looks like the country may scale back its nuclear expansion plans, which in the short term will only increase its reliance on fossil fuels which will in turn drastically limit Japan’s ambitious plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, one would hope that turning away from nuclear expansion would spur the growth of alternatives such as wind power and other forms of renewable energy.

CONTACTS: CrispGreen, www.crispgreen.com; U.S. Geological Survey’s Earthquake Hazards Program, www.earthquake.usgs.gov.

Earth Hour 2011 saw the participation of millions of individuals in 135 countries who turned their lights off for one hour to make a statement about the need to conserve energy to fight climate change. Organizers expect the 2012 event (March 31 at 8:30 p.m., wherever you live) to be even bigger. (Media credit/Reway2007 via Flickr)

Dear EarthTalk: With all the talk of the need for safe, renewable energy sources, isn’t the elephant in the room really that we should use far less energy than we do? Wouldn’t more rules about conservation (like not leaving commercial building lights on all night) make the challenges easier? — Jennifer B., New York, NY

In short, yes: Scaling back our energy consumption significantly, whether voluntarily or as a result of laws and regulations, would go a long way toward achieving our pollution reduction and air and water quality goals. But Americans—and to a lesser extent those in many other developed nations—have never been very good at using less of anything, let alone the energy that makes everything in our whiz-bang modern world possible. That said, conservation is going to play an increasingly important role in all of our lives as we struggle to reduce our collective carbon footprints in a quickly warming world.

President Obama has repeatedly highlighted the need for greater conservation efforts when it comes to shoring up our existing and future energy reserves and reducing our dependence on foreign sources of oil. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 set aside upwards of $3 billion to bolster efforts across the country to weatherize existing buildings in order to conserve energy.

Grants to local communities for such projects, along with calls for voluntary reductions in energy consumption, are part of the plan. The White House is also betting on technology by subsidizing various initiatives aimed at reducing energy use and making our existing power network more efficient overall. Research has shown that investments in energy efficiency that promote conservation are cheaper and provide quicker returns than building new, cleaner power plants. A recent study released by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory predicts annual spending on energy efficiency and conservation to quadruple to as much as $12 billion a year by 2020.

As for what you can do to promote conservation, lead by example—and you’ll see your energy bills go down, too. Turn lights, computers and TVs off when you are done using them. If you’re remodeling or building a new home, occupancy sensors that turn lights on and off as people enter or leave rooms is a good investment, as is making use of natural light in more overt ways to obviate the need for artificial lighting in daylight hours. Also, purchasing appliances rated for good energy efficiency under the federal government’s Energy Star program will save energy. Likewise, driving a hybrid or electric vehicle, or foregoing a car altogether in favor of public transit, biking or walking, is a great way to conserve energy.

One way that awareness about the importance of energy conservation is being promoted around the world is through “Earth Hour,” which began in 2007 when two million individuals and 2,000 businesses in Sydney, Australia turned their lights off for one hour to make a statement about the need to fight climate change. Within a year, the concept had spread to more than 50 million participants in 35 countries. In 2011 Earth Hour drew participants in 135 countries; organizers expect the 2012 event (March 31 at 8:30 p.m., wherever you live) to be even bigger. Similar but unique “Lights Out” movements in San Francisco and other American cities will align with Earth Hour as well.

CONTACTS: Energy Star, www.energystar.gov; Earth Hour, www.earthhour.org; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, www.lbl.gov; Lights Out San Francisco, www.lightsoutsf.org.

Japan would be hard pressed to close all of its 54 nuclear reactors anytime soon, especially given that these plants provide over a third of the nation’s electricity supply and 11 percent of its total energy needs. Pictured: A Greenpeace vigil for Japan in front of the White House in Washington, DC (Media credit/Joe Newman via Flickr)

Most experts agree that Japan would be hard pressed to close all of its 54 nuclear reactors anytime soon, especially given that these plants provide over a third of the nation’s electricity supply and 11 percent of its total energy needs. Japan relies so much on nuclear power because it has so few other domestic sources of energy to draw upon. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, Japan is only 16 percent energy self-sufficient, and much of this comes from its now-wounded nuclear power program.

Despite producing only trifling amounts of oil domestically from fields off its west coast, Japan is the third largest oil consumer in the world behind the U.S. and China, as well as the third largest net importer of crude oil. Imported oil accounts for some 45 percent of Japan’s energy needs. Besides bringing in a lot of oil, Japan is the world’s largest importer of both coal and liquefied natural gas. Against this backdrop of imported fossil fuels, it’s no surprise that Japan has embraced nuclear power; worldwide, only the U.S. and France produce more nuclear energy.

Factoring in that it would take decades to ramp up capacity on alternative renewable energy sources—right now hydropower accounts for three percent of Japanese energy usage and other renewable sources like solar and wind only one percent—and that Japan must import just about all its fossil fuels, it becomes obvious that the country will need to rely on nuclear power for some time to come, despite the risks.

“Supplying the same amount of electricity by oil, for example, would increase oil imports by about 62 million metric tons per year, or about 1.25 million barrels per day,” says Toufiq Siddiqi, a researcher with the nonprofit East-West Institute. He adds that at the current price of oil per barrel (roughly $100), switching out nuclear for oil would cost Japan upwards of $46 billion per year. “Further, it would take almost a decade to build enough new oil, coal or natural gas-fired power plants to provide the equivalent amount of electricity, and tens of billions of dollars per year would be required to do so,” he concludes.

In the short term, the easiest way for Japan to make up for its reduced nuclear output is by importing more natural gas and other fossil fuels, sending its carbon footprint in the wrong direction. What’s less clear is whether Japanese policymakers’ pre-existing plans to increase the country’s nuclear capacity—the stated goal is to generate half of Japan’s electricity via nuclear power within two decades as part of a larger effort to trim carbon dioxide emissions—will still be followed following the Fukushima accidents.

The Fukushima plant failures are likely to impact the always evolving energy mix worldwide as well, not just within Japan. Many analysts expect the nuclear disaster in Japan to cause a shift toward the increased use of natural gas worldwide. Of course, the downside for the environment is that natural gas is a fossil fuel and its use contributes significantly to global warming. While solar and wind power can take up some of the slack, these and other renewables are at least decades away from the scalability needed to power a significant share of a modern industrial society’s energy requirements.

CONTACTS: U.S. Department of Energy, www.doe.gov; East-West Institute, www.ewi.info.

Below is a list of different types of green technology that are starting to come to the surface in the green energy market. This list is in no particular order and present unique solutions to our energy problems. If anyone has seen the season finale of AMC’s “The Walking Dead”, then you’ll know the importance of renewable energy.

1. The utilization of poo-power

Although most people think poop is gross (and yeah, there is a point to that) it is a low-impact, low-cost sustainable energy source. Places like the U.K. are using poop from all animals (chickens, cows, pooches, and even humans) to power their homes, buildings, parks, or whatever else they fancy. For example, http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2010/10/08/didcot-human-waste-biogas/ reports that human waste is going to be used to power their homes in a closed cycle system. Using anaerobic bacteria over a three week treatment course, waste is transformed into usable methane. This can be used to directly heat a home or used to generate electricity. Either way, everyone poops (or so that book says) and I would like to see more places use poop power, especially in public buildings, arenas, restaurants, and people’s homes.

2. Visualization of the amount of energy you are using in your home

This past month, my energy bill doubled from what it was in the previous month. I called my energy provider and unfortunately they couldn’t tell me anything more than “something in the apartment is using more electricity than it should”. I’m not about to bust out an ohm/am/voltmeter to figure out what’s causing the stir, but wouldn’t it be great if we could all actually see how much energy our home is using  in real time? If the smart grid is really smart it would give everyone a user interface, either through a screen in their domicile or using a provider’s website. Either way, it would make people conscious of how much energy their place is using. The more specific the better; data of each wall socket, averages against the community, or even how much energy was used on the same day the previous year would all be helpful to understand impact. As people become more aware of their energy consumption they will be in a better position to make energy conscious decisions as they look to reduce their ever more costly energy bills.

3. Dynamic Braking technology

Oh, Dynamic Braking. If someone told me many years ago that braking would be a catalyst for accelerating, I simply wouldn’t get it. But this video, http://www.ge.com/thegeshow/rails/#ch2 really explains it well. The concept is that when some kind of locomotive uses their brakes, that energy can be transferred and stored to be used later. This technology exists in China with their high speed trains and can also be found in some hybrid vehicles today. But I want to see more of this technology because nothing should be wasted when the energy is a natural byproduct of an inevitable occurrence (vehicles in motion have a tendency to stop when we want to exit them). Beyond vehicles and trains, I want to see this technology in elevators, electric bicycles, or even electric wheelchairs for the handicapped so that their source of mobility is more sustainable.

4. Motion power

A relatively new (although they have used this technology in watches dating back some time) technology for everyday consumers is the idea of powering your electronics as you move. If you live in a city and walk or ride a bike everywhere you go, then this technology may be for you in the not too distant future. At CES, one of the highlighted products was the nPower Peg (http://npowerpeg.com/) because it converts kinetic energy into power for your electronics. I would like to see this type of power in mobile gadgets so that no energy is wasted.

5. Increased battery life

Luckily, for this one, researchers are finding new and innovative ways to make all types of batteries (from lithium-ion improvements to magnesium based batteries [http://inhabitat.com/toyota-developing-magnesium-battery-that-could-reduce-range-anxiety/]). This will make our gadgets and computers work for longer, give our EV cars more range, and make electronics that are usually plugged in, more portable. I would like to see more of our portable electronics and electric vehicles have the capabilities to be used for longer periods of time without needing a charge and the future looks bright for this.

6. More things wireless — more things rechargeable

I have a single thought for this one, but by all means comment below if you think of more electronics that should be wireless/rechargeable. I was getting my monthly haircut when I noticed that all the hair stylists and barbers were tripping over the cords from all of their tools of the trade. If they had all of their clippers, hairdryers, etc. wireless and rechargeable, not only would it look neater, but it would probably reduce the tripping of the circuit breaker and wasted vampire energy.

7. Kill vampire power!

Speaking of vampires, and I don’t mean those silly vampires from Twilight (because what kind of vampire has extra ridiculous powers that belong to X-Men), it really sucks that practically everything that we plug in, regardless of whether we use it or not, will use up electricity. I’ve read that as much as 10% of our energy bills can be attributed to vampire power. As a result, I would like to see new power outlets that can kill the socket when the electronic is not in use. One good example of the technology can be found at http://www.igo.com/green/icat/green/ where some of their products kill the dreaded vampire power. If only we could just throw garlic, silver, and UV light or hire Blade to solve the problem.

8. Tidal power

Now here is a promising technology. I don’t know why people think wind farms are eye sores (at least that’s one of the argument against the Cape Wind Farm), so instead of erecting turbines on our coasts, why not invest in a sustainable source of energy that is hidden beneath in the ocean’s motions. Aquamarine Power (http://www.aquamarinepower.com/) produces the technology of putting an “Oyster” at the bottom of the sea and the motion of the tides generate electricity which can be brought into our grid. I don’t know exactly what the environmental impact on aquatic life would be with the introduction of this technology, but it is a good alternative energy source that can harness the energy of moving water on all of our coasts.

9. Solar powered gadgets (dyes, micro-organisms)

Solar power has become cheaper than using oil and is on the brink of becoming cheaper than nuclear power. But I am not talking about industrial power or those solar powered calculators which have actually been around for decades. I am talking more about everyday gadgets like our smartphones, mobile computers, and so on. Once solar cells become more flexible, lighter, and most important, more efficient, we will likely see more of our gadgets utilizing the power of the sun. It seems that every day there are technological improvements by researchers that increase the efficiency of photovoltaics; layering, the use of dyes, and even microorganisms have all been shown to increase the efficiency and sometimes lower the production cost of solar cells. I would love to see more gadgets that can power themselves on the go by simply being brought outside.

10. Faster  chargers

Although this may not necessarily be the greenest technology on the block, New York based company Ioxus (http://www.ioxus.com/) has come up with a solution that uses lithium-ion ultra-capacitors to charge electronics at an enormously incredible rate. If this type of technology becomes introduced into the market, the sky is the limit for its uses. From charging your iPhone in a fraction of the time, to charging your EV at new government subsidized EV station without waiting around the lot for hours on end, this technology can serve purposes that make the “waiting” part for a charge to become irrelevant. I would like to see this technology more so that our fast moving society can become constant.

So here’s the list, feel free to drop a comment if you agree, disagree, or want to expand on any of these technologies on the list. Also, if you have another type of technology that you want to see more of, just say so.

A Boston firefighter was shocked and nearly electrocuted on October 24 during a 4-alarm fire after an aerial ladder set down on contact with a life electrical wire.

FirefighterCloseCalls reported that Boston Fire Department Ladder 26 set down on contact with a high-voltage electrical wire with 2,800 volts running through it. A firefighter and fire officer climbed to the roof without noticing the ladder was touching the wire.

Firefighters eventually noticed the hazard. The department said that the chief in command of the fire was about to signal over the radio for firefighters to avoid Ladder 26′s ladder, but not before the firefighter and officer started to climb down. The firefighter got on the ladder without incident, but a current started to arc to the ladder. When the officer placed his hand on the ladder, he was shocked.

The officer told his colleagues that he felt a charge pass through his arm. He was able to go down another ladder under his own power and was taken to an area hospital for evaluation. He was “doing fine” afterward, firefighters said.

But Ladder 26 was not fine. The aluminum of the ladder melted in two spots where it came in contact with the fire and roofing. The truck was taken out of service.

This Ladder 26 is a brand new truck, but the last Ladder 26 suffered catastrophic brake failure in January 2009 when it careened down Parker Hill Avenue and crashed into a building killing Lieutenant Kevin Kelley.

Since then, the replacement Ladder 26 and its crew were victimized on Halloween when a firefighter’s helmet was stolen from inside the truck at 8:45 p.m. Boston Police are investigating the theft.

In an additional stroke of luck for the department, the arcing wire that shocked the officer broke in half. One piece landed steps from the command post where firefighters and the chief were standing, and another landed 20-feet from the rear entrance of the fire building. No one else was injured.

Things almost turned deadly again. A half hour later, an NSTAR worker arrived to kill the power, FirefighterCloseCalls reported. The worker was on scene for 20 minutes when he notified the chief that the wire was finally dead.

It wasn’t.

The chief questioned the NSTAR worker twice to make sure the wire was dead, but firefighters pointed out that the wire was sitting in a large puddle of water, from which smoke was pouring out, the site reported.

The NSTAR worker recanted, saying that the line was actually still live. He eventually killed all power around the building and no one else was hurt.

Like many Americans today, I have a variety of gadgets that I use on an everyday basis. There’s my Blackberry, iPod, laptop, handsfree car system, camera and more. How do I manage to get everything charged? Frankly, I have a whole shoebox full of chargers and it’s almost impossible to keep the wires bundled together, so you always end up with a mess of wires. Then there’s the problem of never having enough outlets available to charge all your electronics, especially with the ones that use large power bricks.

A product from IDAP called the IDAP i4 recently came across the desk and claims to help to change all this and free up your outlets. The IDAP 4 is a charging station that allows you to charge up to four different devices simultaneously on just one plug, without the need for messy cables. The device comes with a series of interchangeable tips that insert into the three slots on the product and the other end simply plugs right into the device you wish to charge. Also along the side of the device is a USB port for devices that need to be charged via USB. The company claims the IDAPT i4 is compatible with over 3,500 brands of mobile devices, including Apple, Nintendo, PSP, Blackberry, Garmin, and more. The IDAP i4 creates a hassle free and mess free solution that doesn’t require you to dig out tons of cables or allocate lots of space for charging your gadgets.

The IDAP i4 ships with either six tips from the factory or you may choose up to four of your own tips online. Additional tips can also be purchased for $9.99 and an AA/AAA battery charger tip is also available for $19.99. Customers may decide purchase additional power cords for $13.99, which is a great option especially for travelers who plan to be in another country and want to still use the IDAP i4 to charge their gadgets.

I found the device works perfectly. Gadgets fit well when placed onto the unit and can be removed also very easily. I’m pleased to see that the company included both small LED status lights directly in front of each charging slot that indicate that charging status and a main power switch located in the back center of the unit.

The IDAPT i4 sells for $59.99 and is available online in three-color choices of black, white or silver.

Dear EarthTalk: Is there any way to harness volcanic energy to meet our electricity and other power needs? – Antonio Lopez, Chino, CA

The short answer is yes: Heat generated by underground volcanic activity can and has been harnessed for electricity for over 100 years around the world. Utilities can capture the steam from underground water heated by magma and use it to drive the turbines in geothermal power plants to produce significant amounts of electricity. Getting at the sources is not so easy or cheap, though, as it requires drilling into unstable sections of the Earth’s crust and then harnessing the heat energy miles below the surface.

Despite these difficulties, volcanic geothermal energy reserves account for about a quarter of Iceland’s energy consumption (with the rest taken up by another clean renewable resource, hydropower dams). According to statistics from the Geothermal Energy Association, the Philippines is also a big user of geothermal power: About 18 percent of that country’s electricity comes from underground volcanic sources. And in New Zealand, geothermal accounts for about 10 percent of total electricity consumption.

But believe it or not, the United States is actually the world’s largest producer of volcano-derived geothermal electricity, but still only derives less than one percent of its total power from such sources. California and Nevada are the leaders in this nascent form of renewable energy domestically, but promising efforts are also underway in Oregon, Utah, Alaska and Hawaii. Some analysts believe that the U.S. has enough geothermal capacity to provide 20 percent or more of the nation’s electricity needs.

Against the backdrop of diminishing oil reserves, tapping volcanic energy has become a high priority for some other regions as well. The war-ravaged East African nation of Rwanda is hoping to provide power for its people by harnessing the energy from volcanic gases at Lake Kivu, one of the continent’s largest lakes, covering some 1,000 square miles. The lake is one of three known "exploding" lakes subject to violent and sometimes deadly "overturns" triggered by volcanic activity.  Methane and carbon dioxide from an adjacent volcano mix methane and carbon dioxide into the lake, making it a veritable tinder box, threatening the lives and homes of some two million people in the region.

In response to the risk—and also to produce energy—the Rwandan government has started using a large barge to suck up water and extract the methane gas therein. The methane is then used to fire the gas-powered Kibuye power plant. Already the system is producing 3.6 megawatts of electricity—some four percent of Rwanda’s total power supply. Within a few years, project backers hope to be generating between 50 and 100 megawatts of power from the operation. Extracting the methane also significantly reduces the risk of explosions, thus providing a measure of safety for area residents.

Humans have barely put a dent in the amount of power that can be captured from volcanic activity, but analysts expect to see much more of this form of power coming online over the next few decades. The U.S. Geological Survey refers to this phenomenon as the "plus side of volcanoes." Environmentalists and others are hopeful that volcanic geothermal energy can become a major player in meeting a significant portion of our energy needs in our increasingly carbon-constrained world.

CONTACTS: Geothermal Energy Association, www.geo-energy.org U.S. Geological Survey, www.usgs.gov.

Dear EarthTalk: When we talk about "endangered species" we usually think of animal species, but someone recently told me that there was a worldwide crisis pertaining to the extinction of plants. Can you enlighten? – Max Blanchard, East Islip, NY

We may not realize it, but the health of the plant kingdom is crucial to the health of the planet and the animal life (which includes humans) it supports. "Through photosynthesis, plants provide the oxygen we breathe and the food we eat and are thus the foundation of most life on Earth," reports the Center for Biological Diversity, an Arizona-based nonprofit dedicated to securing the future for endangered plants and animals throughout the world.

"Unlike animals, plants can’t readily move as their habitat is destroyed, making them particularly vulnerable to extinction," says the Center. Habitat destruction—just one of the threats plants face—can lead to an "extinction debt" whereby even some plants that are plentiful now could disappear over time by being unable to disperse to new habitat patches. And global warming is already starting to exacerbate such problems. "With plants making up the backbone of ecosystems and the base of the food chain," says the group, "that’s very bad news for all species, which depend on plants for food, shelter and survival."

A 2009 report by the UK-based nonprofit, Plantlife, found that 15,000 of the 50,000 or so species of wild plants known for their medicinal qualities in traditional remedies are being overexploited and are potentially headed for extinction. The group says the fact that most people around the world—including some 80 percent of all Africans—rely on herbal medicines obtained primarily from wild plants underscores just how serious a problem a mass extinction of wild plants could be for humanity, let alone for the environment. Commercial over-harvesting does the most harm, though pollution, competition from invasive species and habitat destruction all contribute. "Commercial collectors generally harvest medicinal plants with little care for sustainability," Plantlife reports, adding that shortages already exist in China, India, Kenya, Nepal, Tanzania and Uganda.

Another group, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which compiles and maintains the famous "Red List" of endangered species around the world, found that a whopping 70 percent of the 12,000-plus plant species it has evaluated to date are threatened with extinction—despite the fact that each year about 2,000 new plants make themselves known to science. Of course, the organization only evaluates plants that are rare or have suffered major declines.

Meanwhile, researchers in the UK estimate that up to 33 percent of all flowering plants worldwide are threatened with extinction. "That percentage reflects the global impact of factors such as habitat loss," says Lucas Joppa, the study’s lead author, who adds that climate change could increase the toll.

This worldwide threat to plants is just part of a larger biodiversity crisis, and the United Nations has declared 2010 "The International Year of Biodiversity" to raise awareness and encourage action to help stem the tide. The project’s website features listings of celebrations taking place around the world as well as resources for those who want to help spread the word and be part of the solution.

CONTACTS: Center for Biological Diversity, www.biologicaldiversity.org; Plantlife, www.plantlife.org.uk; IUCN, www.iucn.org; International Year of Biodiversity, www.cbd.int/2010.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E — The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: Is the dairy industry really trying to stop soy milk makers from calling their products "milk?" They must feel very threatened by the preponderance of soy milks now available in supermarkets. – Gina Storzen, Weymouth

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) would like to stop soy drinks from being labeled as milk arguing that the terminology is misleading. (Media credit/Timothy Valentine via Flickr)

Indeed, just this past April the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), a trade group representing dairy farms, petitioned the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to crack down on what it calls "the misappropriation of dairy terminology on imitation milk products." NMPF has been asking for such a ruling for a decade, and argues that the soy industry’s "false and misleading" labeling is now more common than ever.

According to NMPF president and CEO, Jerry Kozak, the FDA has let the issue slide so that the meaning of ‘milk’ and even ‘cheese’ has been "watered down to the point where many products that use the term have never seen the inside of a barn."

Furthermore, Kozak adds, the use of "dairy terminology" on non-dairy products can lead people to think they are eating healthier than they really are, especially because non-dairy products "can vary wildly in their composition and are inferior to the nutrient profile of those from dairy milk."

The website FoodNavigator-USA.com reports that on the other side of the Atlantic, the European Dairy Association (EDA) has also called for the term ‘soy milk’ to be replaced with ‘soy drink’. EDA also suggests other options including ‘soy beverage’, ‘soy preparation’ and ‘soy-based liquid’. It’s no wonder the soy industry isn’t quick to give up the milk moniker, given how catchy the alternatives could be!

Jen Phillips of Mother Jones magazine takes issue with the dairy industry’s sense of ownership when it comes to terms like ‘milk’, ‘cheese’ and ‘dairy’. "The word ‘milk’ has lots of uses and has been used for non-dairy milks like coconut for a long time," she reports, adding that consumers already know that soy milk isn’t dairy milk. "Instead," she writes, "the move to ban ‘milk’ from non-dairy products is a transparent ploy by the NMPF to hurt the soybean industry that, thanks to increasingly health-conscious consumers and ethanol production quotas, is growing stronger every year."

She also disagrees with Kozak’s claim that dairy milk is healthier than soy: "Actually, soy milk and dairy aren’t that different nutritionally, except for that milk is fattier," she says, explaining that a cup of vanilla soy milk has 30 fewer calories than a cup of two percent cow’s milk. And while dairy does have twice the protein, soy milk has 10 percent more calcium. "It’s a bit of a toss-up nutritionally, but I’m lactose-intolerant so I’ll choose the ‘milk’ that doesn’t make me gassy and crampy."

Phillips adds that, since 90-100 percent of Asians and 50 percent of Hispanics—two of the fastest growing immigrant populations in the U.S.—are lactose intolerant, "NMPF might want to think less about fighting soy and more about how they’re going to deal with people who can’t drink milk to begin with."

CONTACTS: NMPF, www.nmpf.org; FDA, www.fda.gov; FoodNavigator-USA.com, www.foodnavigator-usa.com; EDA, www.euromilk.org; Mother Jones, www.motherjones.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Many people oppose dams because they change the flow of rivers and affect the migrating patterns of fish and other species, but aren’t they also a great renewable energy source? — Ryan Clark, Milton, WA

Hydroelectric dams are among the greenest and most affordable electricity sources in the world—and by far the most widely used renewable energy sources—but they also take a heavy environmental toll in the form of compromised landscapes, ecosystems and fisheries. Hydroelectric dams have been an important component of America’s energy mix since the powerful flow of rivers was first harnessed for industrial use in the 1880s. Today hydroelectric power accounts for seven percent of U.S. electricity generation—and some two-thirds of the country’s renewable power—according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

Globally, about 19 percent of electricity comes from hydroelectric sources. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that China is the world’s largest producer of hydroelectricity, followed by Canada, Brazil and the U.S. Some two-thirds of the economically feasible potential for hydro power remains to be developed around the world, with untapped resources most abundant in Latin America, India and China.

Of course, despite the inexpensive and emissions-free power, many environmentalists consider hydroelectric dams to be man-made abominations that prevent salmon and other fish from swimming upstream, divert otherwise natural riparian settings, and fundamentally change the character of surrounding ecosystems. Green groups including American Rivers, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, the Endangered Species Coalition, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club are pushing the federal government to mandate the removal of four dams along the Snake River in Washington State that help the region have the lowest power-related carbon footprint in the country. The dams have decimated once teeming salmon runs, and upstream forest ecosystems have suffered accordingly.

But the Bonneville Power Administration, the quasi-federal utility that runs the dams and distributes the electricity they produce, says that keeping them going is crucial even as wind plays an increasingly larger role in the region’s electricity mix. Since hydro power can be generated and released when most needed, it is an important resource for backup power when intermittent sources like wind (and solar) aren’t available.

The scheduled removal of two century-old dams on the Elwha River in Washington State’s Olympic National Park beginning in 2011 may well serve as test cases for larger dam removal projects in the Pacific Northwest and beyond. Planners hope wild salmon numbers will rebound as a result, and that other wildlife—such as bald eagles and black bears—will follow suit.

President Obama has committed $32 million to modernize existing hydropower dams, increase efficiency and reduce environmental impacts. "There’s no one solution to the energy crisis, but hydropower is clearly part of the solution and represents a major opportunity to create more clean energy jobs," U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu told reporters last year. "Investing in our existing hydropower infrastructure will strengthen our economy, reduce pollution and help us toward energy independence."

CONTACTS: U.S. Geological Survey, www.usgs.gov; U.S. Energy Information Administration, www.eia.doe.gov; Bonneville Power Administration, www.bpa.gov.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E — The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

There are few things more frustrating for tech dorks like myself, than trying to squeeze in multiple power bricks into a single surge protecting power strip. There’s never enough space to plug in everything, and often (at least in my case) it usually leads to bouts of cursing, and hate filled stubbornness along the lines of “forcing the square peg into the round hole”.

Well thanks to Quirky’s Pivot Power, you’ll no longer have to worry about turning into a rage filled maniac when you’re trying to plug in your gear, as they’ve designed a completely flexible power strip that assures that all of those horribly shaped power bricks don’t hog up all of the space. The Pivot Power easily bends into circular, semi-circular, and zig zag shapes, enabling it to fit into tight spaces and wrap around furniture and corners.

Awesome, right? Of course it is. My only question is, is why in the hell did it take until 2010 for something like this to be developed?! Regardless of the answer, it’s not available just quite yet, but the development phase of this product did just wrap up and you’re able to pre-order it now via Quirky’s online store, for just $23.00

Consumers are stubborn and hard to please. People tend to like things which they can discern as familiar. We are all creatures of habit and preference. That is why the announcement that Royal Philips Electronics has unveiled the 12 watt EnduraLED light bulb, the first LED replacement for the common 60 watt incandescent bulb, carries layered significance. In addition to delivering 80 percent energy savings, Philips has focused on creating a bulb that delivers the same soft, white light that consumers are used to.

"Philips has long been a company focused on sustainability", Peter Soares, Director of Philips USA said, "it is part of our DNA to bring products like this to the market."

The average 60 watt incandescent bulb has a life of around 1,000 hours; the EnduraLED bulb lasts 25 times longer than that. The EnduraLED also uses only 12 watts of power while delivering 806 lumens. Because of its efficiency the bulb has the potential to save 32.6 million terawatt-hours of electricity in one year, which is enough to power the lights of over 16 million U.S. households.

"The incandescent bulb is a 100 year old technology and not efficient", Soares said, "LED gives you a longer life and a rugged bulb that does not break."

Philips is also ahead of the curve in terms of future legislation. In 2014, 60 watt incandescent bulbs will not be sold anymore. The U.S. Department of Energy created the L-Prize competition as a way to facilitate development of this LED innovation; thus far Philips’ has registered the only submission, which was the basis for the 12 watt EnduraLED.

Creating a sustainable bulb was one thing, making it feasible for mass use was another. In the past alternative bulbs, like the compact fluorescent light (CFL), would give off a harsh, bluish tone. The reason for this is the CFL would have a color temperature of over 6,000 degrees Kelvin (K), the further past 5,000K a bulb goes the harsher the tone of the light it emits.

"Consumers are used to the warm color of an incandescent bulb. That is 2600K or 2700K. Philips’ products are in that 2600-2700K range," Soares said. In the past it has also been challenging developing a bulb that evenly disperses light. Soares sites the solution: "The idea is to use phosphors in conjunction with the LED, which will give it the soft light."

During manufacturing the yellow phosphor is placed adjacent to the blue LED chip to create white light.

The focus on creating a visual feel that is familiar and pleasant represents an acknowledgment on Philips’ part that it is necessary to respect what people are used to. In order to aid the transitional process it is paramount to realize that the average household is lit by 60 watt bulbs with soft, white light. To suddenly force the masses to change would be illogical. The bulb is a screw in replacement, and is also dimmable, which makes it even more accessible to the common consumer.

Soares stated, "It is difficult to put a product on the market that will satisfy consumers". He continued, "It is not about creating a new technology, it is what you do with it".

The hospitality industry is another place where the EnduraLED will have a huge impact. Restaurants and hotels are places where people go to feel comfortable and relax. "The hospitality industry is most similar to a consumer’s life", said Soares, "[The businesses] want to have the same look and feel as your home and office".

"They want to save energy, but do not want to sacrifice the mood and quality of the room. They look at the full cycle cost, and that is where LED comes in".

Since LED bulbs last so long, it is within reason to assume that Philips, and other manufacturers, have to be cognizant of the fact that since the bulbs have a longer life less bulbs will be purchased. "We are developing fixtures that integrate LED’s", Soares said. The fixtures development focuses on aesthetics and they should be available in the not too distant future.

The 12 watt EnduraLED light bulb will be available in the United States in the fourth quarter 2010. Royal Philips Electronics has high expectations for this groundbreaking product and is focused on continuing to be an industry leader in developing sustainable and consumer friendly products. As Soares excitedly stated, "It is really a revolutionary approach to how we light our homes".

Hundreds of Boston College students and other Brighton residents were without power, some for more than a day, late last week.

On December 9, around 3 p.m., a transformer failed on Commonwealth Avenue, NSTAR confirmed. A second transformer failed shortly later. A total of 177 customers were without power for 12 hours, and another 18 were without power for 5 hours. Dozens more were without power from anywhere to a half hour to a few hours, and NSTAR spokesman Dennis Galvam.

One of the manholes that needed to be accessed to restore power was blocked by debris, so a cleanup crew had to be called in, Galvam said. This added to the delay in restoring power to all residents.

“Around 3 a.m., the workers gave a shout of celebration, and the electricity was restored,” said Brighton resident Glenn Willis. “I got up a few hours later, and worked until 8:30am, when the electricity then went out again.” His power wasn’t fully restored until Thursday afternoon.

Galvam said that additional problems with the repair meant 200 more customers were without power from 11 p.m. to 3 a.m. Thursday morning.

Boston College junior Lisa Relle said the power went out on her block in Brighton, which is home to dozens of off-campus BC students.

“Students have been scrambling to find places to sleep and do work during this busy time of year,” Relle said.

Willis said he was disappointed when he called NSTAR and didn’t get a direct answer about when the power would be back.

“I was a bit stunned at NSTAR’s communicative incompetence,” he said. “It is not fair to consumers, who have little choice in the matter of electrical providers, to keep us completely ‘in the dark’ for so long in terms of information, particularly during such cold weather.”

Galvam said that the NSTAR call center was receiving a lot of calls from customers last week and that the weather was particularly foul, adding to problems. He said that customers can always call 800-592-2000 with questions.

Across most of Major League Baseball (MLB), teams are turning greener than the outfield grass, reports the June 2009 issue of E – The Environmental Magazine (now posted at www.emagazine.com/view/?4664). They’re reducing energy consumption, extending recycling efforts, and taking the first steps into renewable energy. So far, four parks, including Fenway Park in Boston, the nation’s oldest, draw some of their power from solar energy.

There’s activity on the construction side as well, with green stadiums opening in each of the last two years, and another one on the way for 2010. Citi Field, the new home of the New York Mets, just opened in April. Last season brought Nationals Park in Washington, the first Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)-certified Major League stadium (it reached the silver level), and next season promises a new park in Minnesota seeking LEED gold.

Building from the ground up gives new parks environmental opportunities that existing parks don’t have. Both Nationals Park and Citi Field have energy-efficient field lighting and waterless and low-flow plumbing fixtures, for example, and both designs incorporate green (vegetative) roofs and white (reflective) roofs to battle the heat-island effect. Additionally, both projects emphasized using recycled steel and concrete, and minimized construction waste sent to landfills.

But it’s not only new stadiums that are getting a green makeover. The previous Red Sox owners were loudly on record as wanting to relocate to the city’s waterfront, where, if they’d wanted to, they could have achieved all sorts of green firsts ‚­ not to mention considerable new revenue streams. But the owners decided to update the current ballpark instead, preserving not only its historical allure but all its embodied energy, a fact acknowledged by the city last year when it named Fenway one of its 12 greenest buildings.

It is likely that the vast majority of green construction work over the next several decades will also be renovation, not new construction.‚  MLB is at the end of an epic building boom, and most parks are far nearer their beginnings their ends.

Stadiums “don’t simply get built and then remain intact for 30-40 years,” says John McHale, MLB’s executive vice president for administration. “There’s a lot of rearranging and re-purposing of space, probably at the 8-10 year mark, and then again at 20‚­about every decade. I expect the renovation work is going to be done with a much higher consciousness to LEED certification than has ever been the case.”

Expanding the Field

And the promotional opportunities are evident to more than just the National Resources Defense Council‚­which has partnered with MLB‚­and the teams. All four of the solar installations at MLB parks‚­at the homes of the Colorado Rockies, the San Francisco Giants, the Boston Red Sox and the Cleveland Indians‚­were funded in part by local utilities or nonprofits.

In Cleveland, the club was approached by the nonprofit group Green Energy Ohio, the host of the 2007 National Solar Conference, “because they wanted a show piece for the attendees to come see,” says Brad Mohr, assistant director of ballpark operations. The result was a 42-panel, 8.4-kilowatt array.

Mohr, a passionate proponent of renewable energy who now is investigating wind turbines for the club, thinks the panels will not only influence “the average person used to coal burning,” but could also yield an even broader benefit: “What I’m hoping for is that a startup will see that photovoltaics work at this latitude, recognize that Northeast Ohio has an incredibly skilled labor force from the car manufacturing plants that have closed,” and open a plant, he says.

How the Yankees Dropped the Ball

To environmentalists and residents in surrounding New York neighborhoods, a Bronx cheer seems the most appropriate response to the new Yankee Stadium project. They and some of the stadium’s Bronx neighbors are furious at the Yankees and the city for building over 22 acres of public parkland and cutting down 377 mature trees, 70% of the local tree population in a poor area that already had a sky-high asthma rate.

While the stadium accommodates fewer spectators (52,325, including standing room), it boasts more concessionaires, restrooms and nearly double the retail space of the old haunts. There are also more luxury suites: 56 instead of 19, plus 410 “party suites.”‚  Front-row seats sell for a Ruthian $2,500 each.

But don’t expect to see parks advocates lining up for them at the turnstiles.‚  “Kids were crying while they chopped down these trees with no warning whatsoever,” says Geoffrey Croft, president of New York City Park Advocates and outspoken opponent of the stadium project.

Critics cite among their grievances the secretive nature of the city’s deal to allow the Yankees to pave over popular Macombs Dam and John Mullaly parks, which was negotiated and signed before the public was informed, they say. Protests and legal actions against the project were unsuccessful.

“Everybody just loves the Yankees so much that they wouldn’t even consider what the people had to say,” says Karen Argenti, a board member of the Bronx Council for Environmental Quality, which also opposed the new stadium. “There were no elected officials who would stand up for the community. It was impossible to get a fair hearing on this.”

E – The Environmental Magazine distributes 50,000 copies six times per year to subscribers and bookstores. Its website, www.emagazine.com, enjoys 100,000 monthly visitors. E also publishes EarthTalk, a nationally syndicated environmental Q&A column distributed free to 1,750 newspapers, magazines and websites throughout the U.S. and Canada ( www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek). Single copies of E’s May/June 2009 issue are available for $5 postpaid from: E Magazine, P.O. Box 469111, Escondido, CA 92046. Subscriptions are $29.95 per year, available at the same address.

Dear EarthTalk: What is “microfinance” and how does it help poor countries and preserve the environment? – Eliza Clark, Seattle, WA

The brainchild of Grameen Foundation founder Muhammad Yunus, microfinance is a form of banking whereby financial institutions offer small loans to the poor. The idea behind the concept, which originated in Bangladesh in the mid 1970s, is that motivated and disciplined poor people could climb out of poverty if they had access to funding-even small amounts-that help get businesses off the ground. With access to revolving loan funds, these “micro-entrepreneurs” can build businesses, pay back the borrowed money, and continue to provide for themselves and their families in a sustainable manner.

A classic example would be a woman who borrows $50 to buy chickens so she can sell eggs to other members of her community. As her chickens multiply, she can sell more eggs, and eventually she can sell chicks as well. She pays back the money and has climbed out of a perhaps desperate situation financially-and the community benefits from having a new source of nutritious food.

“Having access to money to start a small business isn’t about fulfilling a dream, it’s literally about keeping their families one step ahead of starvation and putting a roof over their heads,” says Tracey Turner, founder of MicroPlace, an online “microfinance marketplace” launched by eBay in 2007. Individuals can put small or large amounts of money on MicroPlace and get a rate of return in the two- to three-percent range-better than a donation-and get the satisfaction of knowing that their cash is helping someone in a developing country improve their lot and that of their impoverished community.

On the environmental front, microfinance is, in and of itself, “green” in that it promotes businesses that can be sustained indefinitely. Example after example over the last three decades have proven the concept that when poor people are given opportunities to earn a living in a legitimate and sustainable fashion, they have little or no need to pillage their surrounding natural resources to shelter or feed themselves. Also, most of the financial institutions involved in microfinance hold up sustainability as a precondition for awarding loans. Others encourage greener businesses by offering lower interest rates to borrowers with sustainability-oriented plans.

While upstarts like MicroPlace and Kiva (which operates on a similar model whereby individual investors can get in on the microlending fun) are grabbing most of the microfinance headlines these days, Grameen Bank was the first microfinance lender in the world, initiating its first project in 1976 in the Bangladeshi village of Jobra. Today Grameen does a lot more than just offer small loans. It also accepts deposits and provides other banking services, and runs several development-oriented businesses including fabric, telephone and energy companies. And it has spawned thousands of other institutions doing similar things: World Bank statistics show that more than 7,000 microfinance institutions serve some 16 million people in developing countries with $7 billion in outstanding loans, 97 percent of which are repaid.

In 2006, Grameen founder Muhammad Yunus was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.

CONTACTS: Grameen Bank, www.grameen-info.org, MicroPlace, www.microplace.com; Kiva, www.kiva.org.

Dear EarthTalk: What is the so-called “smart grid” I’ve been hearing about, and how can it save energy and money? — Larry Burger, Litchfield, CT

America’s electricity grid is built upon what many consider to be an antiquated principle: Make large amounts of electricity and have it always available to end users whether they need it or not. It’s much like the way most home water heaters work in keeping water constantly hot even when it is not being used. It is also a strictly one-way relationship with utilities supplying power to end users, but not also vice-versa.

The smart grid concept is predicated on a two-way flow of energy-and information-between electricity generators and end users. The system not only delivers power to end users as needed, depending on demand; it also gathers power from end users that produce their own-homes and businesses that generate solar, wind or geothermal power themselves-when they have more than they need.

Some 42 states and Washington, DC already require utilities to have systems in place to buy excess energy generated by their customers. But, writes journalist Michael Prager in E – The Environmental Magazine, “because they can’t know in real time that power is coming in, utilities generate as much as they would have anyway.” He adds that when information flows both ways, end users will be able to send information back to the grid specifying how much power they need and when they will need it. They’ll also be able to communicate when they have excess power available to upload to the grid.

On the forefront of research into the feasibility of the smart grid on a large scale is the Future Renewable Electric Energy Delivery and Management (FREEDM) Systems Center, established in 2008 by the National Science Foundation and headquartered at North Carolina State University. FREEDM is partnering with universities, industry and national laboratories in 28 states and nine countries to develop technologies they say will “revolutionize the nation’s power grid and speed renewable electric-energy technologies into every home and business.” So far, some 60 utilities, alternative energy startups, electrical equipment manufacturers and other firms have signed onto the new partnership.

One such utility, Colorado-based Xcel Energy, has even begun to put smart grid technology into practice on a trial basis for a small percentage of its customer base. The utility has spent some $100 million outfitting 35,000 homes and businesses in and around the city of Boulder with automation and communications capabilities to enable two-way communication of electricity needs.

Xcel won’t have enough data to assess energy and cost savings until early 2010, but analysts are optimistic that the utility’s costly experiment will reap benefits down the road for consumers, utilities and the environment. Indeed, environmentalists and economists alike have high hopes that widespread implementation of such “intelligent” systems could help usher in a new age of unprecedented energy efficiency, emissions reductions and cost savings around the United States and beyond.

CONTACTS: Future Renewable Electric Energy Delivery and Management (FREEDM) Systems Center, www.freedm.ncsu.edu; Xcel Energy, www.xcelenergy.com.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

Screw the economy; when you go to cart away that new flat panel HDTV from Best Buy, young pimple-faced Mr. or Miss Blue Shirt is going to try to load on a $200 (or higher) Monster-brand surge protector to keep your new investment safe from a whole host of devastating electrical problems.

Also in the high-priced range is the Tributaries T12 power strip, with eight rotating power receptacles and Ethernet, phone and cable protection.

It’s $120, which is too expensive for anything labeled a “power strip” that doesn’t include a uninterruptible power supply/battery backup for your gadgets. I don’t care what brand or label it falls under.

That said, it’s a damn shame the T12 costs over $100, because it’s one of the handiest power strips/surge protectors I’ve ever used.

Eight of the 12 sockets rotate 90 degrees to get whatever AC adapter you’re using out of the way of everything else. The 12 also delivers 4320 joules of surge suppression. It’s rated for 15 amps for up to 1875 watts of load — enough for several computers or your entire home theater and much more. It also offers a $25,000 warranty on plugged-in devices.

We’re basically rounding out the year with this review, because we started 2008 by introducing everyone to the Powramid — an innovative pyramid-shaped power strip.

Like the Powramid, the T12 is superior in almost all ways (except cost of course) to traditional power strips. The sockets are arranged — and move — to accommodate all of your many gadgets.

Plenty of people on the blogs have asked why you need 12 plugs. I’m a big nerd, but I don’t run a multiple display setup or keep my video game consoles on my desk. I managed to basically fill up the T12 with what I would think is a normal amount of computer junk:

• Computer
• Monitor
• Cell phone charger
• Wireless mouse charger
• External hard drive
• Cable modem
• Router
• Printer
• Computer speakers
• Digital camera charger

So it’s not the plugs that are the problem.

Price is the problem, and there are somewhat comparable products out there for less.

Just be careful. Don’t go to the dollar store and buy “Joe’s brand surge protector” and be aware of the cheap imitations of the cheap imitations with fake UL certifications.

Bottom line: you don’t absolutely need to spend $120 for a decent power strip, but if you’re spending thousands on a home theater with all the trimmings, don’t think you can get away for a $5 one either.

Dear EarthTalk: My body doesn’t tolerate cheese well. Are there dairy-free cheeses that will be easier on my constitution and better for the environment, too? — Steve Sullivan, Seattle, WA

With some 30 to 50 million Americans suffering from various degrees of lactose intolerance, and an estimated three million of us now eating animal-free (vegan) diets for humane, environmental and/or health reasons, the production of alternatives to dairy products has started to become big business.

But while substitutes for milks and ice creams abound, mostly soy- or rice-based blends that have come a long way since they first appeared on grocery shelves, finding satisfactory alternatives to the many varieties of cheese can be a challenge. But the choices are expanding rapidly.

The first place to look might just be your regular supermarket’s produce section-that’s often where you’ll find Galaxy Foods’ Veggie line of non-dairy cheeses. After all, they are made from soy, a crop. Galaxy’s offerings come shredded, grated, in slices and in hunks. Fans swear they taste just like the real thing. And they are all excellent sources of calcium without cholesterol, saturated/trans-fats or lactose.

Galaxy also offers cheeses made from rice. And while some of both the Rice Brand and Veggie line contain small amounts of cultured milk salt, dried skim milk protein and trace amounts of lactose, Galaxy also make two purely vegan varieties, usually found in the dairy sections of grocery or health food stores.

A few other popular brands made with rice include Rice Slices and Lifetime Low Fat Jalapeno Jack Rice Cheese. Check the shelves of your local organic or natural food market to find one or more to sample.

Another leading producer of dairy-free cheeses is Scotland’s Bute Island Foods. The company began making its own vegan hard cheese alternatives (sold under the Sheese brand name) in 1988, and has since expanded into cream cheese alternatives (Creamy Sheese) as well. From pizzas to sauces to sandwiches to spreads, Bute Island has vegan and lactose-intolerant cheese lovers covered.

Some other soy-based choices that get good reviews include Good Slice Cheddar Style Cheese Alternative (great for sandwiches), vegan-friendly Tofutti Soy Cheese Slices, Follow Your Heart’s Vegan Gourmet (pizza, anyone?), and Teese (it melts with the best of them), among others.

Do-it-yourselfers might want to experiment with making their own non-dairy cheese using ingredients such as tofu and yeast. A quick web search will yield many recipes for making cheese and for using non-dairy cheeses in favorite dishes. Many of the best are collected in Joanne Stepaniak’s The Ultimate Uncheese Cookbook, available in some bookstores as well as from Amazon.com and other online vendors.

With so many good choices, not to mention recipes for home cooked varieties, many a vegetarian may just make the leap into full-fledged vegan eating. And existing vegans can rejoice: French Onion Soup (dairy-free, of course) is back on the menu.

CONTACTS: Galaxy Foods, www.galaxyfoods.com; Bute Island Foods, www.buteisland.com; Follow Your Heart, www.followyourheart.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Can those energy-efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs that are popular now cause headaches because of the flickering they do? I converted my whole house over last fall and both my kids were complaining of headaches on and off. – Sandy, Eugene, OR

With a switch to energy efficient compact fluorescent (CFL) light bulbs already in full swing in the U.S. and elsewhere-Australia has banned incandescents, Britain will soon, and the U.S. begins a phase-out of incandescents in 2012-more and more complaints have arisen about the new bulbs causing headaches.

Many experts say that the issue is being overblown, however, that there is no scientific evidence that the bulbs cause headaches and that a kind of hysteria has grown out of a small number of anecdotal reports.

Industry experts acknowledge that day-to-day exposure to older, magnetically ballasted long tube fluorescent bulbs found mostly in industrial and institutional settings could cause headaches due to their noticeable flicker rate. The human brain can detect the 60 cycles per second such older bulbs need to refresh themselves to keep putting out light.

However, modern, electronically ballasted CFLs refresh themselves at between 10,000 and 40,000 cycles per second, rates too fast for the human eye or brain to detect. “As far as I’m aware there is no association between headaches and the use of compact fluorescent lamps,” says Phil Scarbro of Energy Federation Incorporated (EFI), a leading distributor of energy efficiency-related products-including many CFLs.

But Magda Havas, an Environmental & Resource Studies Ph.D. at Canada’s Trent University, says that some CFLs emit radio frequency radiation that can cause fatigue, dizziness, ringing in the ears, eyestrain, even migraines. You can test to see if CFLs in your home give off such radiation, she says, by putting a portable AM radio near one that’s on and listening for extra static the closer you get. She says that such electromagnetic interference should also be of concern to people using cell phones and wireless computers.

Sometimes headaches are due to eyestrain from inadequate lighting. When replacing an incandescent bulb with a CFL, pay attention to the lumens, which indicate the amount of light a bulb gives out (watts measure the energy use of a bulb, not the light generated). A 40-watt incandescent bulb can be replaced by an 11-14 watt CFL because the lumen ouput is approximately the same (490); a 100-watt incandescent can be replaced by a 26-29 watt CFL, both providing about 1,750 lumens. If you’re still skeptical, replace a 40-watt incandescent with a 60-watt equivalent 15-19 watt CFL, which will boost lumens to 900.

Another consideration is color temperature (measured in degrees “Kelvin”). CFLs rated at 2,700 Kelvin give off light in the more pleasing red/yellow end of the color spectrum, closer to that of most incandescents. Bulbs rated at 5,000 Kelvin and above (usually older ones) give off a less pleasing white/blue light.

The Environmental Defense website provides a handy chart comparing the watts and lumens of incandescents versus CFLs, along with further discussion about color temperature.

CONTACTS: EFI, www.efi.org; Environmental Defense, www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagid=630.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php

Dear EarthTalk: I need to replace my old TV. Can you tell me which of the latest models is the greenest? I was told that the flat-screen/plasmas are real energy hogs. What do you recommend? -- Angela Montague, via e-mail

According to The Wall Street Journal’s Rebecca Smith, a 42-inch plasma TV set can draw more power than a large refrigerator, even if the TV is only used a few hours a day. This is partly because many newer models don’t turn off but go into “standby” mode so they can start up fast later with no warm-up period. “Powering a fancy TV and full-on entertainment system-with set-top boxes, game consoles, speakers, DVDs and digital video recorders-can add nearly $200 to a family’s annual energy bill,” she adds.

Smith recommends green consumers consider the Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) models, which typically uses less energy than comparable plasma sets. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a 28-inch conventional cathode-ray tube (CRT) set uses about 100 watts of electricity. A 42-inch LCD set might consume twice that amount, while plasma could use five times as much, depending on the model and the programming. For the largest screen sizes (60 inches and up), projection TVs are the most energy efficient, clocking in at 150-200 watts-significantly less than the energy a plasma set would use.

“What scares us is that prices for plasma sets are dropping so fast that people are saying, why get a 42-inch plasma set when you can get a 60-inch or 64-inch one,” says Tom Reddoch of the non-profit Electric Power Research Institute. “They have no idea how much electricity these things consume.”

For its part, the industry is taking some steps to make its products more efficient, and to improve disclosure of energy usage. In June 2008 Sony pronounced its new 32-inch Bravia KDL-32JE1 LCD model “the world’s most energy efficient television.” Slated for sale in Japan in August 2008 for around $1,400, the new set utilizes fluorescent tubes to create higher levels of brightness with less energy consumption, but still delivers large resolution, a high contrast ratio and a wide viewing angle.

Beginning in November 2008, forward-thinking manufacturers will get a little boost from the U.S. government, which will start awarding the most energy efficient new TV sets “Energy Star” labels to help consumers identify greener choices. TVs bearing the Energy Star label must operate at least 30 percent more efficiently than standard models in both stand-by and active modes. Consumers can see which models qualify by visiting the televisions section of the EnergyStar.gov home electronics page. According to the EPA, if all TVs sold in the U.S. met Energy Star requirements, yearly energy savings would top $1 billion and greenhouse gas emissions would drop by the equivalent of taking a million cars off the road.

Of course, the greenest option of all (aside from getting out from in front of that tube and spending more time outdoors) is to keep or repair your existing CRT unit (a digital-to-analog converter will be needed after February 2009 when new signal specifications go into effect). Most CRT sets use less energy than any of the LCD or plasma models, and if it ain’t broke, why fix it? Buying a new TV, even a greener one, only generates more pollution in production and transport, and creates waste in junking the old model.

CONTACTS: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov; Energy Star, www.energystar.gov; Electric Power Research Institute, www.epri.com; Sony Corp., www.sony.com.

Dear EarthTalk: I heard that children are reaching puberty at earlier ages now and that it may have to do with environmental toxins and even their TV viewing habits. Can you enlighten? – Mark Abbot, via e-mail

To say that kids are growing up faster than ever these days may be more than just clich©. Recent studies have shown that children are reaching puberty at younger and younger ages, and researchers are starting to see links between this trend and other societal ills such as ubiquitous pollution and sedentary lifestyles.

In a 2007 report for the Breast Cancer Fund entitled “The Falling Age of Puberty in U.S. Girls: What We Know, What We Need to Know,” ecologist Sandra Steingraber argues that unfettered access to computers and TVs over the last 30 years has led to an increasingly sedentary lifestyle among kids in the U.S. and beyond. Active kids produce more melatonin, a natural hormone that serves as the body’s internal clock and calendar. This could explain why sedentary kids are likely to go through puberty sooner: Their bodies think their decreased melatonin production is a trigger to move into puberty. “[Melatonin is] an inhibitory signal for puberty,” says Steingraber. “The more melatonin you have, the later you go into puberty.”

Of course, sedentary lifestyles are also linked to childhood obesity, a condition that often continues-along with the many health problems that can accompany it-into adulthood. A recent National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) found that, between 2001 and 2004, 17.5 percent of children ages six to 11 were overweight-an effective doubling of obesity rates three decades ago. A study by the non-profit Obesity Society came up with a slightly higher figure-20 percent-with the percentages higher for Hispanic, African-American and Native American children.

Obesity is certainly one factor in the surge in so-called “precocious” adolescence, but chemicals are also thought to play a role. According to Erin Barnes, writing in E – The Environmental Magazine, a study comparing the body mass index of Danish and American girls found that the former group hit puberty a full year later than the latter even though their weights were in the same range. Another study found that wealthy girls in South Africa reach puberty a full year after their African-American counterparts. “Many researchers,” writes Barnes, “are studying the relationship between chemical pollutants like PCBs (polychlorinated bphenyls) and phthalates (commonly used plasticizers) and premature development.”

Some researchers believe that the preponderance of synthetic chemicals in more developed societies are interfering with human endocrine development and essentially “tricking” kids’ bodies into going through puberty prematurely. Also, precocious puberty in girls has been linked to breast cancer, as well as higher rates of drug abuse, violence, unintended pregnancies, problems in school and mental health issues.

“Shortening childhood means a shortening of the time before the brain’s complete re-sculpting occurs,” says Steingraber. “Once that happens, the brain doesn’t allow for complex learning.” She adds that the brain can only build the connections used to learn a language, play a musical instrument or ride a bike before it gets flooded with the sex hormones that come with the onset of puberty.

CONTACTS: Breast Cancer Fund, www.breastcancerfund.org; National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm; Obesity Society, www.obesity.org.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

Dear EarthTalk: In renovating a vacation cabin, I discovered carpenter ants working their way through the walls. Is there any way to responsibly get rid of the pests without using noxious chemicals that could potentially harm my family? — Curran Clark, Lummi Island, WA

Carpenter ants may seem small and look harmless, but they can do serious damage to anything wooden in your home, including not only furniture but also the very framing and walls that hold up the house. If you are seeing a lot of ants or small piles of sawdust-like material in random spots in or around your home, you are most likely suffering from a carpenter ant infestation.

Ants are very social beings and form large colonies before spreading out to find additional nest sites. They thrive by hollowing out wood, especially in moist or rotten spots, to build their nests and then use their new home in your walls and chairs as a base camp from which to forage for food and water in their nearby surroundings. Indeed, their very presence is a good indication of moisture or rot problems in the wood, so homeowners may have more work on their hands than simply exterminating carpenter ants.

In the northern latitudes of the continental U.S. and in much of Canada, carpenter ants are the most common insect wood destroyer, surpassing even the mighty termite. But while many commercially available chemical pesticides will rid a structure of carpenter ants, homeowners are increasingly steering away from such toxins proven to impact the human nervous, respiratory and reproductive systems.

Perhaps the most economical and effective way to get rid of carpenter ants is by applying boric acid (also known as borax) to their nest sites and surroundings. This natural non-toxic element, mined from below the Mojave Desert in southern California, has a long history of use in exterminating brazen populations of cockroaches, palmetto bugs, waterbugs, silverfish, termites, and, you guessed it, carpenter ants.

Al Abruzzese, owner of the website Al’s Home Improvement Center, swears by boric acid to get rid of wood-boring pests. “This simple inexpensive, household chemical is deadly to all insects,” he says. “It has been shown to attack their nervous systems, as well as being a drying agent to their bodies.”

Beyond just being effective as an all-natural insecticide, boric acid is non-toxic to humans. Abruzzese says it is safe enough to use around children-it has been used in ointments and salves for diaper rash on babies in the past-and can be an important part of eyewash solutions as well, albeit in very diluted form (don’t try it at home). One common brand name to look for is Nisus Bora-Care, but any pesticide with boric acid or borax listed as an active ingredient will do just fine.

For those not into do-it-yourself pest control, calling in an exterminator that uses all natural products is a good option. Oregon’s All Natural Pest Elimination, for instance, services the entire four state region of the Pacific Northwest with products from Natureline-crafted from safe botanical extracts and essential oils, not synthetic chemicals-on all of its extermination jobs. Look in the yellow pages for exterminators in your area, and call each one you are considering to make sure they stay away from noxious chemicals.

CONTACTS: Al’s Home Improvement Center, www.alsnetbiz.com/homeimprovement; Nisus Bora-Care, www.nisuscorp.com; All Natural Pest Elimination, www.nobuggy.com.

Dear EarthTalk: What is “cogeneration” as a means of providing heat and power? – Jerry Schleup, Andover, MA

Cogeneration-also known as combined heat and power, distributed generation, or recycled energy-is the simultaneous production of two or more forms of energy from a single fuel source. Cogeneration power plants often operate at 50 to 70 percent higher efficiency rates than single-generation facilities.

In practical terms, what cogeneration usually entails is the use of what would otherwise be wasted heat (such as a manufacturing plant’s exhaust) to produce additional energy benefit, such as to provide heat or electricity for the building in which it is operating. Cogeneration is great for the bottom line and also for the environment, as recycling the waste heat saves other pollutant-spewing fossil fuels from being burned.

Most of the thousands of cogeneration plants operating across the United States and Canada are small facilities operated by non-utility companies and by institutions like universities and the military. For small cogeneration plants-those that generate anywhere from one to 20 megawatts of power-biomass or even methane from garbage dumps can be used as a front-end fuel source, but natural gas is far more common as the primary input.

For instance, Sunnyvale, California-based Network Appliance Inc., a computer networking company, relies on a one megawatt natural gas-powered cogeneration system to power the building’s extensive air conditioning needs, and for back-up power for use during peak demand times. The company estimates it saves around $300,000 a year in energy costs thanks to the cogeneration system.

In another example, Illinois-based Epcor USA Ventures operates three mid-sized (25 megawatts and up) cogeneration power plants in San Diego to power U.S. Marine Corps and Navy bases there. All three plants work in the same way: Natural gas turbines drive electrical generators that in turn exhaust hot gases. These are then captured to drive a steam generator hooked into the bases centralized heating and cooling systems. Since the systems generate power to spare, Epcor is talking with area companies about kicking in for a share of the steam to keep their energy bills and carbon footprints in check.

Cogeneration is not limited to stationary power plants. Honda is exploring the use of a specialized automotive cogeneration generator designed to improve the overall efficiency of hybrid vehicles by recapturing waste exhaust heat from the internal combustion engine and converting it to electricity to recharge the battery pack. The idea is still in the research and development phase, it could make its way into new cars within a few years, further improving on the already impressive efficiency of hybrid cars.

CONTACTS: Network Appliance Inc., www.netapp.com; Epcor USA Ventures, www.primaryenergy.com; Honda Motor Company, http://world.honda.com.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

Kreative Power, a newcomer to the technology market, has launched a funny-looking new surge protector in the shape of a pyramid.

The “Powramid” is a six-outlet cone of a power strip that’s actually pretty smart. It lets you plug large power adapters into each socket and is extremely compact.

Kreative says several models of the product are coming, but right now, their website only shows one, the E-900H.

Now, there’s not much to say about a surge protector, but you have to give these guys some credit for doing something different in the relatively vanilla world of surge protectors.

The E-900H will retail somewhere between $17-25, said Bonnie Jiang, Kreative’s sales director, in an interview Wednesday. The product will come in a wide variety of body and indicator light colors as well.

They’re also offering free t-shirts to anyone who preorders.

Kreative plans to highlight their new toy at CES, January 7-10 in Las Vegas.

Technical specs:

Outlets: 6
Cord length: 8′
AC Plug style: Right-angle
Joules: 900
Clamping Voltage: 330V
Max spike current: H-N 15,000A, H-G 15,000A, N-G 15,000A
Electrical ratings: 125V, 15A, 60Hz, 1875w