Author Archive

Maggie Puniewska

Maggie Puniewska is a freelance writer based out of the greater Chicago area. She has a B.A. in communications from University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. In addition to Please Conserve, she currently writes for the buzz, an entertainment magazine on campus. She has written and published on a wide range of subjects and her specialty for Please Conserve is conservation and environmental topics.

The Sub-Saharan region in Africa is one of the world’s most sunshine-abundant places. Knowing this, it would be inefficient not to turn to solar power as an alternative energy especially since this region is also one of the most poorly lit areas in the world. That’s why two students at the Kansas State University are taking advantage of the sun in an attempt to ‘enlighten’ many villages.

Tai-Wen Ko and Justin Curry, electrical engineers at K-State, are designing a solar powered lamp that is efficient, eco-friendly, and cheap. Right now, most people in that region use kerosene lamps, which are the most affordable option, but not the most ‘green’ solution to their lighting needs because the lamps emit a hefty amount of carbon dioxide.

This is where Curry and Ko step in. Using their expertise in electrical engineering, the pair designed a lamp with three components: a solar panel, a battery, and a white light-emitting diode. They chose to use the diode instead of a fluorescent bulb because it’s cheaper, brighter, and lasts longer. The only ‘flaw’ of the design is the lead battery, which would have to be discarded after use, but the team is researching a recycling plan that can be implemented in the region.

Ko and Curry’s design and initiative shows how something so small, such as a solar powered lantern, could make such a great impact both on the environment and the people of an underdeveloped region. Not only will the cost of the lanterns enable more people to have light, the fact that the lanterns use such an abundant and renewable resource allows more lanterns to be distributed and produced. Using solar power in a region rich in sunshine sounds like a very ‘duh’ idea, but few people, if any, have actually attempted to provide light using the sun. It’s good to see such young individuals working to better the world using such a not tried (yet) but true method.

It’s the fruit of the summer. Sweet, red, and juicy. And whether you prefer it seedless or not, it may soon be fueling your vehicle. Watermelon: the future of fuel? According to an American Institute of Physics article from July 2, 2009, this succulent fruit is being evaluated by researchers at the Agricultural Research Center as a potential alternative fuel. But just how will this tasty treat run the cars of America?

The magic ‘e’ word: ethanol. Two substances, lycopene and citrulline, can be extracted from watermelons and later fermented into ethanol, which can be converted into bio-fuel. Experts at the center estimate that a 20 pound melon can yield seven tenths of a pound of ethanol. Sounds like a pretty small amount. I’m getting anxious here. Will these summer delights be swept off store shelves and dumped into my gas tank? Will I be forced to resort to another melon?

Probably not. The center provides an interesting fact: 800 million pounds of melon that are harvested each year never make it to your tummy because they are blemished or not fit otherwise for sale. Whew! That’s a relief. But is it worth the time, effort, and money to ferment watermelon juice into fuel?

I’m not quite sure how I feel about this melon abuse. On the one hand, I’d rather have 800 million pounds of watermelon be put to use instead of decaying on the fields. It’s good to know that in an effort to ease our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil, research is being conducted on alternative methods. But we have not attacked the problem. We need to ease our use of fossil fuels and oil, as well as our dependence. While attempting to find alternative fuels is well worth the effort, more emphasis needs to be placed on actually telling people to use less fuel. The solution is pretty simple: Buying more fuel efficient cars, using public transportation, walking or biking to get around. In order to decrease our dependence, we need to decrease our use. Not only will this save our wallets (because we will be using less), it will cut Mother Nature some slack in terms of emissions.

So, although watermelon fuel sounds like it might be filling my gas tank, I’d prefer to walk to store and have it fill my belly. Unless, of course, it is rotten. Then off to the Buick it goes.

In most big cities, “rush hour” is a misnomer- there is hardly any rush during any hour. Driving bumper to bumper has become a standard procedure during any time of the day: morning, afternoon, evening, lunch time, tea time…chances are your commute mph will be turtle paced. And who is to blame? Is it the fact that with over 250 million cars registered in the US, there is almost one car per every American? Is our imprudent purchasing power actually perpetuating our own problems? Maybe, but there is more to the congestion conundrum than American consumerism.

A July 15, 2009, article from the Wall Street Journal¸ details how traffic jams are also fueled by poor construction decisions that create back-ups in residential areas. Lack of government spending in cities that suffer brutal congestion such as Los Angeles and Washington D.C. has also been an issue. The article mentions that Congress allocates transportation throughout a variety of districts, instead of focusing on a few ‘bad’ areas.

So far, the possible solutions lead to no where. If the government spends more money expanding roads, they are only encouraging driving, and in essence re-creating congestion. But if nothing gets done, the jams continue and so do the headaches.

Although expansion seems like the most viable solution, there is another one: changing attitudes. If Americans weren’t as attached to their cars as 4 year-olds were their ‘blankies’, a good portion of the problem would be solved. It seems like we believe we would literally be stranded without our vehicles, incapable of even making it to the neighbor’s house around the block.Lo and behold, there are alternative methods of transportation. Consider: the bus, train, or a bike. Even carpooling reduces the number of vehicles and emissions on the roads.

And there is some promising news out there. It seems like slowly, more Americans are catching on to this ‘alternative’ phenomenon: According to a report by the American Public Transportation Association, between 1995 and 2008, ridership with public transportation increased by 38%.

This increased participation not only reduces fuel emissions, the savings in gasoline, car maintenance, insurances, and other expenses really add up: you can save about $9,000 annually just by taking public transportation. That coupled with the money saved on headache medication, calls for some major savings. These savings can be applied to repair the stress damage caused by past traffic jams. Margaritas, anyone?

Pretty soon you may be blowing your nose and wiping your behind with a more eco-friendly tissue. The Kimberly-Clark Corporation, a giant in the paper industry, has agreed to begin using more recycled paper in its products. The paper company is finally surrendering to suggestions from Greenpeace to stop using old-growth timber for production of paper products. According to an August 5, 2009, article from the Washington Post, in return, Greenpeace has agreed to end their 4-year “Kleercut’ campaign which attacked Kimberly-Clark’s detrimental practices.

Although the agreement does sound promising, the company stated that only 40 percent of its wood would be from recycled paper or sustainable forests. 40 percent? This may be better than nothing, but it is still not enough. What does KC have to lose from using recycled paper? Forests that have taken hundreds of years of grow? National parks? Backyards? Playgrounds? Trees are not easily renewable resources-they take decades, if not centuries to grow. With millions of Kleenex users around the country, millions of trees are sacrificed for nothing more than convenience. Back in the day, people had to use handkerchiefs and they didn’t drop dead doing so. I’m not saying we go back to horse-drawn buggies and hoop skirts, but we can be a little nicer to Mother Nature and it doesn’t take that great of a sacrifice.

Despite their ‘revolutionary’ announcement, Kimberly-Clark can do more to mitigate their use of old-growth lumber. What is worse is that they do not plan on using 100 percent recycled paper in the future because it would be too coarse for American consumers. Whatever I am relieving my mucus in does not to be a satin pillow. Maybe that’s just me.

Ultimately, more pressure needs to be put on Kimberly-Clark to make their products content include more than 40 percent recycled material. Recycled paper is already there. No trees need to be cut, run through a mill, made into paper. KC pretty much has there work cut out for them. So, although 40 percent is better than nothing, KC can definitely step it up.  If they can’t do 100, let’s aim for something lower. How about 99.9?

The future looks bright, but it’s going to be expensive. In an effort to mitigate costs and cut emissions, many cities are switching to more eco-efficient methods of power to light streets and roadways. But this power isn’t coming in for cheap. As the city of San Jose, California, is learning, being nice to Mother Earth comes with a pretty hefty price tag.

An April 26, 2009, Wall Street Journal article details how officials in San Jose are experimenting with LED lights as a way of reducing their energy bill. Their target: street lamps. The city plans on installing 125 LED street lamps by this summer, which could save them 10-60% in utility payments. The main advantage of these lamps is that they can be set to certain conditions, producing fewer or more light on command. This means that at times when less light is needed, the lights can be dimmed. Although these energy savings sound like a sweet deal, are they worth the price? A single LED light costs $600, while a traditional sodium-vapor lamps cost $200; replacing thousands of street can cost millions of dollars. So what should eco-conscious cities do?

Turn to the sun. The use of solar panels has become an increasingly popular solution to sky rocketing energy bills. And with California averaging 160 days of sun a year, it may not be the “Sunshine State”, but I’m sure 50% sunshine year around will suffice. Although there is no guarantee that the installation cost solar power lights will be less expensive than LED lights, they will use solely renewable energy, which will reduce energy bills in the long run. Companies such as OK Solar and Solar Illuminations have a variety of solar street lights available for both residential and commercial purposes.

San Jose is definitely worthy of a high-five for looking for energy alternatives with LED lights in a time when we are ever more dependent on fossil fuels. But despite the LED efficiency appeal, the cost might not be an attractive part of this deal, especially with many cities tightening their wallets. Using solar panels might be a cheaper alternative and will be especially beneficial for sunny states such as California. So, when in doubt, look to the sun. Just don’t stare too hard…you might hurt your eyes.