Brown on Green

Using alternative products to help indoor air quality

By Krista Peterson
Guest Contributor

We hear a lot about outdoor air quality and pollution. But what about indoors? What about inside your house?

A number of common household products contain toxins that affect indoor air quality and pose health risks for some.

Items such as cleansers, paint, pesticide and even insulation can reduce indoor air quality, putting some at risk for asthma, nausea, kidney damage and mesothelioma.

Organic alternatives to some of these products can increase sustainability in the home and cut down heavily on health risks.

Whether taking on a crafts project or decorating, paint can sometimes be harmful. Most paint products are high in Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s). This is a toxin that can cause headaches, dizziness, and even nausea. Luckily, there are a number of alternative options in most hardware stores. Low-VOC paints are the best alternative to regular paints that are high in VOC’s.

Chemicals and pesticides are two highly used products both inside and outside of many residences. Common versions are often loaded with possible dangerous toxins such formaldehyde and triclosan.

Even with a great need for cleansers and pesticides around the house, there are a number of suitable alternatives and uses to cut toxins and health risks. Many stores carry organic cleansers and they can be made at home, as well. With pesticides, families should look to limit them only to outdoor use. Keeping shoes in the garage can prevent tracking pesticides into the house.

Another common household toxin for some is asbestos located in insulation. Asbestos was commonly used as lining and insulation in all types of building structures until the 1980’s. When workers who were around asbestos started being diagnosed with mesothelioma, the dots started to be connected by doctors. With mesothelioma life expectancy being so limited, companies began to halt use of asbestos throughout the 1970’s. Some older houses may still have asbestos within the insulation today. Luckily, there are a number of organic alternatives in insulation today. This includes options such as foam spray and cotton fiber, which are both made from recyclables.

Even with a number of ways to cut down on pollution outside, maintaining indoor air quality through organic alternatives is of major importance. Making some small replacements and changes inside the home can be highly beneficial in reducing health risks.
––––––––––
Krista Peterson of Orlando, Florida, is a recent college graduate who is an aspiring writer and has a passion for health and wellness. Have an article you’d like to contribute to BrownOnGreen.Net? Contact me at jerry@pr-impact.com.

Simple Stove Improves Human Health, Environment

By Jerry Brown
BrownOnGreen.Net

A simple $25 cook stove developed by Colorado State University is improving human health and the environment in parts of the Third World.

The stoves were designed and developed at CSU’s Engines & Energy Conversion Laboratory (EECL). It’s located in a building near the main campus that used to be the home of Fort Collins’ main power plant.

In parts of India, Africa, Asia and South America, families cook their meals over fire pits or rudimentary wood-burning stoves.

“It’s a huge human health problem,” Dr. Morgan DeFoort, EECL co-director, said during a recent interview at the lab. “It’s also a huge environmental problem.”

“We now have easily half a billion people who desperately need a cook stove,” DeFoort added.

To address the problem, DeFoort said, EECL developed a simple but durable and efficient stove that fits the cooking style of families throughout the Third World.

The stoves are marketed and sold by Envirofit International, a nonprofit spinoff of the lab. Envirofit currently sells about 10,000 stoves a month -- more than a quarter million in all.

“So we now have lots and lots of people breathing cleaner air, families breathing cleaner air, because of this device,” DeFoort said.

Health improvements aren’t the only benefit, though. There’s also an environmental benefit.

“We have deforestation and unsustainable harvesting of wood that’s leading to global impacts on greenhouse gas emissions,” DeFoort said.

EECL focuses on “large, global problems around energy and combustion where we can have an impact,” DeFoort said. “Cook stoves is certainly one of those areas.”

The stove developed by the lab reduces fuel consumption by about 50 percent and reduces harmful emissions by 50 to 70 percent, DeFoort said.

 

Coal-to-Gas Express keeps rolling through Colorado Legislature

By Jerry Brown
BrownonGreen.Net

The Coal-to-Gas Express barreled through the Senate on Wednesday as it continued its bullet-train trajectory through the Colorado Legislature.

H.B. 1365 goes back to the House today for expected approval of minor amendments made in the Senate.  Then it’ll be ready for Gov. Bill Ritter’s signature into law.

The bill, championed by the governor’s office along with both Democratic and Republican leaders in the Legislature, would require Xcel Energy to submit a plan to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission by August 15 for reducing emissions from its coal-fired generating units in the state.

The bill directs that the plan for reducing emissions "give primary consideration to replacing or repowering coal generation with natural gas."

“For natural gas production and use, HB 1365 is the most significant and positive piece of legislation in the State Legislature in the last decade,” Tisha Conoly Schuller, president of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, said in a statement issued after the Senate vote on Wednesday.   “The natural gas industry is a major economic driver in the state.  Support and passage of this bill demonstrates the importance of this industry to the state’s economic, fiscal, and environmental future.”

Despite support from leaders of both parties in the Legislature, the final vote in the Senate broke pretty much along party lines with all but three Democrats supporting the bill and all but three Republicans voting against it.  The tally was 20-13.

Coal-conversion-to-natural-gas bill back on track in Colorado Senate

By Jerry Brown
BrownonGreen.Net

A bill encouraging Xcel Energy to switch several coal-fired power plants to natural gas got back on track Tuesday with preliminary approval by the Colorado Senate.

H.B. 1365, which has been on a bullet-train trajectory through the Colorado Legislature, had been scheduled for Senate action on Monday but was delayed a day at the request of Sen. Sean Mitchell, R-Broomfield.  Final Senate approval is expected on Wednesday.

The bill, approved by the Colorado House last week, would require Xcel Energy to submit a plan to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission by August 15 for reducing emissions from its coal-fired generating units in the state.

The bill directs that the plan for reducing emissions "give primary consideration to replacing or repowering coal generation with natural gas."

“Today, Colorado is making history. Not only are we creating a national model for cleaning up Colorado’s air, but taking the necessary steps to ensure we can keep our communities healthy,” said Pam Kiely, program director for Environment Colorado. “The solution is as clear as Colorado blue sky day -- we need to use less coal in Colorado”

Coal-conversion-to-natural-gas bill hits snag in Colorado Senate

By Jerry Brown
BrownonGreen.Net

A bill encouraging Xcel Energy to switch several coal-fired power plants to natural gas, which has been on a bullet-train trajectory through the Colorado Legislature, hit what appears to be a minor speed bump on Monday.

With H.B. 1365 scheduled for preliminary approval in the Senate later in the day, supporters of the bill staged a little political theater on the west steps of the Colorado Capitol Monday morning to show their support.

Gov. Bill Ritter, a bipartisan group of legislative supporters, environmentalists and the head of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association voiced support for the bill at a news conference on the Capitol steps as a group of 200 or so supporters stood in the background.

But a short time later, Sen. Sean Mitchell, R-Broomfield, asked that the vote be delayed to give legislators more time to review the bill and offer changes.

Although Mitchell's request slowed the bill’s accelerated trip through the legislature, the delay could be short-lived.  The bill was rescheduled to come up for a Senate vote on Tuesday morning.

The bill, approved by the Colorado House last week, would require Xcel Energy to submit a plan to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission by August 15 for reducing emissions from its coal-fired generating units in the state.

Supporters said the legislation responds to a warning from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that Colorado faces federal action to bring the state’s air quality into compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act.

They said the bill will mean more jobs for the state and clean up the air along the Front Range without hurting the state’s coal industry because, they said, most of the coal mined in Colorado goes to utilities in other states and the loss of coal sales in Colorado can be made up in sales to utilities in other states.

But Stewart Sanderson, president of the Colorado Mining Association, disputed all of those claims.

“This bill is a backroom giveaway to the gas industry,” Sanderson said.  “It will cost electricity consumers a bundle.”  And it will mean a net loss of 500 jobs in the state because of the loss of mining jobs, he added.  He said the the power plants covered by the bill burn more than 2.6 million tons of Colorado-mined coal annually.  "We can't make that up in (out-of-state) export markets," he said.

Under the bill, the PUC would be required to “approve, deny, or modify” the plan by December 15 of this year and implement it by December 31, 2017.

Supporters of the bill, including Xcel Energy, see the proposed legislation as cheaper in the long run than allowing EPA to take what they fear would be a piecemeal approach involving one power-generating unit at a time.

“In the long run, it would be a better deal for our customers,” Xcel Energy spokesman Mark Stutz said of the proposed legislation.

The bill is “an opportunity to craft a uniquely Colorado solution for cleaner air while growing jobs in Colorado through the use of homegrown cleaner fuels,” Ritter said.

Stutz said the bill could affect one of more of three Xcel Energy generating stations along the Front Range -- the Cherokee Generating Station in north Denver, Valmont Generating Station in Boulder and the Pawnee Generating Station in Brush.

Converting coal-fired units to natural gas isn’t the only option, Stutz said.  Xcel Energy could submit a plan for reducing emissions by retiring one or more coal-fired units or retrofitting the units with equipment that would reduce emissions by the required amount while still using coal, Stutz said.

Retrofitting the units to allow the continued use of coal doesn’t appear likely, however.

The bill directs that the plan for reducing emissions "give primary consideration to replacing or repowering coal generation with natural gas" and says “a coordinated plan of reduction of emissions will . . . promote the use of natural gas and other low-emitting resources to meet Colorado’s electricity needs, which will in turn promote development of Colorado economy and industry.”

Colorado House Passes Coal-Conversion-to-Natural-Gas Bill

By Jerry Brown
BrownonGreen.Net

Necessity is the mother of invention -- and can lead to interesting bedfellows.

Responding to a warning from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that Colorado faces federal action to bring the state’s air quality into compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act, the Colorado House gave preliminary approval last week to a bill that could require Xcel Energy to switch some of its power plants from coal to natural gas.

Not surprisingly, the state’s mining industry opposes the proposal.

But Xcel Energy actively supports it.  So do Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter, Democratic and Republican leaders in the legislature, the natural gas industry and environmental groups.

H.B. 1365, which passed second reading in the House on Friday, would require Xcel Energy to submit a plan to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission by August 15 for reducing emissions from its coal-fired generating units in the state.

The PUC would be required to “approve, deny, or modify” the plan by December 15 of this year and implement it by December 31, 2017.

Supporters of the bill, including Xcel Energy, see the proposed legislation as cheaper in the long run than allowing EPA to take what they fear would be a piecemeal approach involving one power-generating unit at a time.

“In the long run, it would be a better deal for our customers,” Xcel Energy spokesman Mark Stutz said of the proposed legislation.

“This is a really big deal,” added Pam Kiely, program director for Environment Colorado.  “It’s one of the most aggressive things we’re doing to clean up our air.  It’s a model for the country to follow.  This is a big deal.”

Supporters are cautiously optimistic, but aren’t declaring victory by any means.

“Any time you’re moving a policy of this magnitude through the legislature, it requires thorough and detailed debate,” Kiely said.  “Nothing of this magnitude is ever a slam dunk.”

Stutz said the bill could affect one of more of three Xcel Energy generating stations along the Front Range -- the Cherokee Generating Station in north Denver, Valmont Generating Station in Boulder and the Pawnee Generating Station in Brush.

“Where a lot of the story gets lost,” Stutz said, “is when it comes to describing what the bills does.”  He said the bill wouldn’t require conversion of coal-fired generating units from coal to natural gas.  Instead, he said, it calls for a “framework” for reducing emissions to comply with federal law. 

Converting coal-fired units to natural gas isn’t the only option, Stutz said.  Xcel Energy could submit a plan for reducing emissions by retiring one or more coal-fired units or retrofitting the units with equipment that would reduce emissions by the required amount while still using coal, he said.

Retrofitting the units to allow the continued use of coal doesn’t appear likely, however.

The bill directs that the plan for reducing emissions "give primary consideration to replacing or repowering coal generation with natural gas" and says “a coordinated plan of reduction of emissions will . . . promote the use of natural gas and other low-emitting resources to meet Colorado’s electricity needs, which will in turn promote development of Colorado economy and industry.”