Maybe Next Year Pittsburgh

I think this is what the Pirates' owner said after we lost in the NLCS in 1993... and then we went on our 15 year journey of blowing. But really, Pittsburgh didn't make the top 50 in Popular Science's "America's 50 Greenest Cities." Portland now has Greg Oden, and consistency across the board baby!

Journal #9: Power Mac G4 Assessment

I checked out one of the articles that I hadn't read posted on the course webpage which was an environmental assessment of the Power Max G4 released in 1999. This, I assumed, was the first G4 model since the model was manufactured between 1999-2004.

The reading first states that it is not a complete life cycle analysis, but a focus on the product's environmental impact in its use stage. I was a little leery of the study's neutrality, as I figured the authors were consultants hired by Apple. But they presented several areas where the product could be upgraded as challenges for the future, mostly concerning the hazardous materials used in the product.

There are three areas the reading cites as significant improvements in desktop computers at the time: energy consumption, materials, and repairability. Where the G4 showed the greatest achievements were in its energy consumption as its maximum power usage was 75% below the Energy Star requirements at the time. This is due to its ability to use only 5 watts of power during sleep mode. The G4 has a greatly reduced number of components in the model, as well as making many of the parts easily repairable. This saves in the amount of material used along with customers being able to repair the product more often than just having to scrap it.

This is a great example of what we talked about in class, along with one of my earlier posts, about choosing what to design for. In this case, we can assume that there was a heavy focus on reducing the energy use and materials waste in the design phase of the product, although there could be other aspects that were not discussed in the study. I went to apple's environment site to learn a little more about what they focus on now, and it appears that from the design to the end-of-life, environmental aspects are continually considered.

Journal #8: Democratic Candidates on Environmental Issues

I don't really pay that much attention to the election, which is definitely a bad thing. So other than gagging at the video of Hildog (Hillary) crying, and listening to Obama's way too long speeches that I don't have the attention span for, I decided to check out some of their recent environmental stances.

A friend had originally told me that both candidates had avoided the topic of global warming and the environment, and that Hillary had only discussed the issue when confronted with an inquiry in public. I searched google news for Obama and Clinton environmental articles, but you have to search for global warming in order to find anything related. I found an article from the Baltimore Sun on Obama's recent speech at the University of Maryland. Maryland is a state that is dramatically feeling the effects of sea levels rising as islands and lands are slowly disappearing.

Obama is focusing on reducing emissions from greenhouse gases, and a staple point of this is putting caps on industry emissions and requiring all vehicles to have a MPG of at least 40. This, he proclaims, will cut our dependency on foreign oil drastically.

How feasible is this? By just looking at GMC's website, one of their largest SUVs, the Yukon, has recently been made into a hybrid. What are the changes? A maximum MPG of 17 is now 22 (on highways). With Americans and American car companies continuing to produce large vehicles, this seems to be a hard task.

Hildog lays out a plan that is much the same, focusing on emissions, green low-income housing, 50$ billion in research money, and increasing vehicle efficiency to 55(!) MPG by 2030. First of all, the 55 MPG seems drastic, and pretty far fetched as it could be 15 years after Hillary could be out of office. The research fund seems like a feasible plan, although I am not one to boast about my knowledge on government funding allocations. Probably the most appealing thing, and least likely to happen, on her list to me is the low-income green housing which she hopes to create jobs and spread environmental awareness with.

Still, I would be happy to see maybe 20% of the promises being made on the candidates list to actually happen. It is safe to say that my expectations are low, but I will choose the best of the worst.

Charlie Batch: "Steelers Rule, Patriots (aka youth crime and dropping out of high school) Suck!"

So here's how it went down:

T-Bone: "What's up bro, remember that sick touchdown pass you had to Quincy Morgan??"
Charlie Batch: "Dude I rule. Now grab some girls we are headed to Diesel VIP... bottle service."

thanks to the jerk wearing a giant jacket and taking up the bottom left corner.

Well, actually, C Batch came to CMU to talk about his work in Homestead for the Batch Foundation which promotes after school activities and good grades, mostly through sports. I showed up, with one other person out of about 50, in my steelers jersey and terrible towel. He also answered a bunch of steeler questions, and had a bunch of good stories about the super bowl season, bettis, cowher...

My questions was "What is the biggest difference in playing for Cowher and Tomlin?" He kind of skirted around the answer and said Tomlin was just more reserved but had the same desire. The other great question, asked by Chris Watts was "How happy were the Steelers that the Patriots lost the Super Bowl?" This question was also not answered very directly, but he did confirm "I was happy."

Journal #7: Environmental Assessment of Used Oil Management

I was referred to a paper written by one of the professors I will likely be working for next year, Arpad Horvath. It was a detailed Life Cycle Analysis of used oil management in California. The study focused on the three major management methods of combustion, rerefining, and distilling. The limits of the LCA were placed on the end-of-life phase to concentrate on generated wastes and emissions.

Used oil has significantly higher amounts of heavy metals, sulfur, and total halogens when compared to crude oil. It is generated by the transportation, construction, and industrial sectors, where it is then processed through one of the management methods and used as fuel, lubrication, or in other materials production such as asphalt.

Combustion is the most common method of management (75% of used oil). Combustion creates the least amount of waste, but results in much higher emissions of heavy metals when compared to the other management methods. This is the most hazardous risk to human health, and is not nearly as evident in rerefining and distilling. Still, combustion is the cheapest, easiest way to manage used oil which is reflected by its popularity.

The authors then advise that the best option is to take measures to increase management in rerefining and distilling. Already, California is planning to double its rerefining operations. Incentives could be created to reward alternate management methods (other than combustion).

This journal entry was more of a summary of a technical study than an analysis, and allowed me to get a chance to dissect a very detailed report by myself. It gave a better understanding of what goes into a full LCA, and its many applications in environmental engineering.

Journal #6: Urban Farming

Since urban farming was a popular topic in class yesterday, I decided to look it up online. I had no real previous knowledge of urban farming except for communal gardens, but those are only meant as a space for those who don't have lawns or garden areas (apartments).

So the first hit on google was the wikipedia article, which had limited cited sources and was marked as biased. Still it presented a lot of the basic principles of urban farming that we talked about in class. Urban farming, it reads, is geared to increasing city food supplies, providing much need jobs, making the urban public more environmentally conscious, and reducing land usage (deforestation or habitat destruction for farm use).

The intentions are great and the goals seem simple enough but not obtainable on the level that the article describes. Impacting a whole city's food supply does not seem feasible with the land available within city limits. Families with yards seems like a possibility if they are very dedicated, but I don't see how this could branch out much more without decreasing park space. Just thinking of a place like New York City being able to significantly increase their food supplies based on urban farming seems very far fetched. Probably it's most realistic and beneficial aspect could be the environmental awareness it creates, and employing youth participation could be the biggest its biggest impact on the future.

I read one of the links at the bottom of the page that introduced "Skyfarming", where a farm, using hydroponic techonology, is grown vertically to reduce land usage. The hope is that someday someone generates the funding to create largescale vertical farm (a farm skyscraper). This type of farming can create clean energy, purify wastewater, create consistency in food supplies (eliminating dangerous "rogue" strains), and would be all-organic. Something this seems so futuristic that it can seem unbelievable, but appears that with real funding could achieve the goals of urban farming within the small amounts of land available in a city.

Journal #5: LEED Schools Program

So after learning a little more about LEED at the Focus the Nation lectures, I decided I should become way more acquainted with some of their practices. This was a goal of mine from the beginning of the semester as I was registered to take the Archie LEED course which was dropped a week before classes further reinforcing my distrust for their profession.

I checked the U.S. Green Buildings Council website and took a look at the only presentation I could get to work on my computer. It was a powerpoint on LEED certification in U.S. Schools. First I was unaware that schools were the greatest economic sector of the construction industry in 2007. However, most of the schools are built only to meet requirements and are subject to continual expensive maintenance practices. With about 20% of the population spending 6 hours a day in schools, it seems that much attention could be given to make the schools more accommodating.

So then they pitch the usual LEED buildings things of reducing waste, energy consumption, and making a more naturally comfortable environment. The effects on the building users are what I felt would be most different in schools than other LEED buildings. The presentation boasts that LEED schools have a 3% increase in user productivity and a 3% decrease in teacher turnover. I don't really feel that these will be the most beneficial effects. It would be interesting to see if there was a real decrease in high school dropouts in a school that was recently upgraded into meeting a lot of LEED standards. Also, I feel the greatest benefit would be the early environmental education that the LEED building would reinforce for students. At an early age kids could be fully aware of our environmental problems and what needs to be done to change things, and hopefully this could make an entire generation environmentally conscious from the start. This could trickle out to parents and communities easily, even though the change would be slow. This aspect goes along with my other post of how AASHTO is trying to educate the worker, not the manager. It is more important to educate on the seemingly lesser scale to really see an impact.

The LEED dudes also cite that meeting standards reduces costs by $100,000 a year on average. Although this is a great pitch, it might just result in government reduction of the education budget, which would be a tragedy. Still, I am glad to see the USGBC striving to see change in the schools.