Best alternative medicine for acid reflux 99

Signs herpes outbreak is coming

Going green very often must mean saving green, and this is possible when you successfully implement energy efficiency initiatives that reduce energy consumption. A good first step in any energy optimization project is to perform a comprehensive energy analysis, where energy experts examine the energy usage patterns and demands of a facility and identify opportunities to improve energy efficiency. Getting management approval to undertake those identified energy efficiency projects is not always an easy task.
After projects begin, facility managers should report new energy usage patterns and the resulting savings on a monthly basis. Typically, a complete energy analysis will include recommendations to improve the most basic electrical issues.
Power reliability also remains a major concern among industrial manufacturers as electrical supply disruption can cost a plant millions of dollars due to lost production time and equipment damage.
Some of the first energy-saving steps a facility can take are also some of the simplest and least expensive. Motor loads often represent the largest opportunity for energy savings and it is a good idea to look at ways to reduce the power consumption of the motors used in HVAC systems and manufacturing processes. It’s likely that numerous energy efficiency projects will be considered and implemented in your facility to contribute to overall energy savings. If you already have a power monitoring system, one way to take it to the next level is to integrate those devices into an energy management software system. In 2004, Schneider Electric began an energy optimization project employing the actions and ideas above, focusing primarily on 21 of its facilities spread across the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Using many of its own products and solutions, Schneider Electric was able to realize an energy savings from 2005 through August 2008 that totaled more than $5.1 million. Beyond the cost savings, Schneider Electric looked at its results and equated the savings into something other than money. For companies willing to invest the time and resources to energy efficiency initiatives, the payback can be dramatic to both your bottom line, but also to your impact on the environment. Renewable energy is becoming as American as apple pie, and as any good chef knows, the quality of the finished products depends largely upon the ingredients used. Using all the Nielsen study data, here are the results presented in (what else?) a pie chart.
Not that much of a difference, given that only 6 percent of respondents said they preferred nuclear power in the first place.
Some will argue that I’ve cherry-picked (apple-picked?) my data to produce the final pie.
This entry was posted in All, CO2, Downloads, Intl., Media, Renewables, Solar and tagged CO2, Geothermal, Nuclear, Solar, Wind.
Osha (I assume this is your name?) as Bill Woods pointed out, Storm van Leeuwen was wildly discredited and if you notice, few, if any, cite him and his team anymore. My sources, including British energy which is a state surface, the DofE etca are all widely regarded as objective sources. If you look at any set of objective studies, from universities, primarily, but other sources as well, no one seriously doesn’t consider nuclear to be low-carbon and in fact the worlds governments are generally in agreement about that. Since the mining and transport of materials for wind is way higher than nuclear, would we consider this a net increase in carbon out put?
The EIA of the DofE has a list of the carbon out put of all sources of energy, based on lifetime front end to back end cycle. This, as the majority of recent studies show, CO2 output equals that of wind, based on life cycle analysis. What NONE of the studies show is the massive required backup in terms of fossil fuel, most notably gas fired gas turbines but also coal because of the unreliability of renewables.
There simply is no one in the industry: grid operations, manufacturing, environmental regulatory or climate change scientists who would back up YOUR unsubstantiated claim that nuclear is not low-carbon. The problem is that your writing actually backs up the Glen Beck Know-Nothings because you fail to provide any evidence of your claims thus giving, on a silver platter to idiots like Beck, that renewable energy advocates don’t know what they are talking about with regards to energy.


Both of the complete citations you provided (Meier and the British Energy study) exclude a critical factor: the GHG emissions associated with spent fuel disposal. In the US, the solution – burial at Yucca Mountain – was a massive project that emitted an unknown quantity of GHGs. British Energy is one of the largest nuclear power companies in the UK, if not the largest, operating eight plants with a 9,000 MW capacity.
The more important point is that nuclear power advocates claim carbon-neutrality while ignoring GHG emissions from disposing of spent fuel. First, thanks for illustrating my point that the pie can be sliced differently depending on who is wielding the knife. Especially if you include life time usage including the huge 10x material costs per MW for wind vs nuclear.
I know your blog is subtitled “A Left-Wing, Pro-Nuclear Energy Perspective,” but please – don’t give Glenn Beck and his ilk encouragement! This is good news for the environment, but with energy prices the way they are, it’s more likely that many sustainability initiatives in the industrial market are being driven by companies’ bottom lines.
Projects are then prioritized based on the initial cost and expected payback period, and those with the greatest potential savings and quickest payback should be among the first to be undertaken.
Find out ahead of time what financial model your company uses to make investment decisions, then present projects within that framework. Schedule a quarterly conference call where energy teams at each of the facilities share information or set up meetings once a year to discuss best practices that have been established and how they can be replicated companywide. Examples of this may be to replace existing equipment with lower consumption devices and to fix leaks and add insulation. It’s important to ensure all upgrades improve the efficiency and maintain or even increase the system reliability.
Often requiring little or no investment, a focus should be placed on possible behavioral changes such as shutting down production equipment and lighting when not in use to reduce energy.
Consider installing occupancy and light-level sensors in conjunction with lighting control software so that lights are automatically turned on and off using either a predetermined schedule or based on input devices. Consider installing variable frequency drives, which provide improved control over motor operations and the ability to run at only a percentage of the motor speed, resulting in less power being used in the application. In order to maximize these savings and know which projects to implement first, it is vital to benchmark energy consumption and track savings by project. For plant managers, such software can help manage energy in financial terms, as well as benchmark and compare facility performance across all its operations to identify energy inefficiencies or losses. The program set out with an ambitious goal of reducing energy consumption per employee by ten percent from 2004 to 2008. In addition, the company’s goal of reducing energy consumption per employee by ten percent by 2008 was met two years ahead of schedule. It was figured that the energy initiatives avoided 5,454 tons of CO2 emissions and a ten percent reduction in greenhouse gases. It’s been interesting, and I appreciate your efforts to fight global warming, even if we disagree on the means.
If your readers do *any* good search for this, they will find dozens of studies all of which put nuclear at or near that of wind.
All the numbers I’ve seen *bar none* show that in terms of aluminum, steel and concrete wind uses from 4 to 10 times the amount than nuclear. They’re helpful in some respects, but they don’t do anything to bolster your original claim that “everyone” agrees that nuclear power is a low carbon source of energy.
Now that the Obama administration has rejected the Yucca Mountain solution, a new plan will have to be devised, and estimates for CO2 emissions are, of course, not factored into either of the studies cited. They commissioned the study by AEA Technology, a private research company whose links to the nuclear industry has been a source of controversy in the UK.
Until there are rely data for that, it’s hard to take seriously the claims of any nuclear life-cycle analysis.


If you want to convince readers of this website – and they’re a pretty tech-savvy group – you’ll need to show the data you used to arrive at your conclusion.
If you look at my post above, that’s why I objected to including nuclear as a “carbon neutral” energy source in the first place.
One is simply a repeat of my previous question: What is your source for your “10x material costs” figure? Personally, I think you’ll have a hard time providing data proving that everyone in the energy business agrees on anything, but I’ll wait for your evidence.
In many cases, internal sustainability projects won’t get senior management approval based solely on a positive environmental impact. Another factor to consider is that with higher energy prices, the expected payback time of energy efficiency initiatives has dropped by 30 percent in the last five years, expanding the list of viable projects to implement. If this isn’t possible, explain other advantages such as reduced maintenance costs, increased comfort, and indoor air quality, and translate proposed savings into environmental goals such as potential greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions.
Don’t be shy about communicating results from energy efficiency initiatives companywide in order to generate support for future projects.
Oftentimes energy efficient lighting upgrades are among the first projects undertaken, largely because of their quick return on investment. Of course, power reliability means more than just a steady supply of electricity, it also means ensuring a high level of power quality, free of spikes, sags, swells, harmonics, or other transients that can damage equipment or cause it to fail prematurely.
However, you may find that asking people to modify their behavior does not return reliable results.
Be sure to install circuit monitors, which allow for up-to-the-minute energy usage and quality readings in addition to long-term trending. This type of software is also beneficial in meeting corporate environmental stewardship goals and even has the ability to monitor greenhouse gas emissions – by collecting pertinent data and converting energy reductions to equivalent carbon emissions. In other words, the company saved enough electricity to power 655 average homes, or the equivalent of annual emissions from 906 passenger vehicles, or 11,506 barrels of oil.
Certainly reprocessing can be totally nuclearized so there is essentially zero-carbon from nuclear. The real issues with nuclear as economic (financing it) and spent nuclear fuel (recycling, etc). Its neutrality was based on ignoring everything that led up to or followed the moment of electrical generation. Also, adding insulation in major heat loss areas is one of the easiest and most effective areas for improvement. Instead, consider installing devices that automate the control of equipment, such as turning off devices when not needed and regulating motors or heating at the optimized level. Metering is critical to identifying demand savings opportunities and gives managers the data necessary to identify energy efficiency opportunities and validate savings. The results are interesting, partly because things look very different depending on how you slice the pie. I don’t believe that nuclear power is either renewable or carbon neutral, so out it went. What is not, as I noted previously, included is the amount of fossil fuel back up needed for wind and solar. This is known as implementing active energy efficiency initiatives, and typical energy savings for these initiatives can be up to 30 percent.
I also think that we can learn more about the energy preferences of Americans if we remove from consideration those who don’t actually have a preference.



Energy boosting oatmeal cookies
Herpes simplex virus type 1 ab.igg


Comments
  1. Fialka 10.07.2014 at 21:44:17
    Herpes blisters and common pimples.
  2. Koketka 10.07.2014 at 22:33:37
    Extra about herpes virus should assist individuals turn individuals aged.
  3. FREEMAN 10.07.2014 at 11:14:50
    Time hiding out within the.