Ultimate Analysis of Biomass

Heating value & ultimate analysis of any fuel be it biomass or fossil fuel is correlated long back by Du-Long in 19th Century.

Most recently a Mr. S. A. Channiwala 1992 thesis, The Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay) collected data on over 200 species of biomass and fitted the following equation to the data:

HHV (in kJ/g) = 0.3491C + 1.1783 H - 0.1034 O - 0.0211 A + 0.1005 S -0.0151 N

Where C is the weight fraction of carbon; H of hydrogen; O of oxygen; A of ash; S of sulfur and N of nitrogen appearing in the sltimate analysis.

This equation fitted the experimental data with an average error of 1.45%, typical of the error of most measurements. This equation permits using heat values in calculations and models of biomass processes.

However, I am giving here the table for fuels indicating their ultimate analysis & HHV.










Source: - BioMass Energy Website

Get Free Updates: *Please click on the confirmation link sent in your Spam folder of Email*

Continue to read this post...

Collapse this post back.

Low Grade Waste Heat - Importance

High gasoline prices have forced us to make painful adjustments in our day to day work life in terms of improving energy efficiencies of existing systems. The world's dramatically growing energy demands are affecting all energy prices. Coal, Uranium and natural gas prices have all risen dramatically in the past few years and will continue to grow in the future as more and more of the world's population adopts our energy-wasting lifestyle. We are straining the limited resources of our planet.

Our wasteful energy habits were formed during the many decades before 1973, when oil was less than $3.50 per barrel. At those prices energy was essentially free so we learned to ignore waste. Only 15% of the power of the gasoline you burn in your car goes to move it down the road. The rest ends up as wasted heat, uselessly heating the air. Electric cars are about 75% efficient but they lost out to gas buggies back when gasoline was an insignificant cost.

This is an article from Renewable Energy World with some changes.
In 1882, Edison's first electric power plant sold their spent steam for district heating. Efficiency of electric generation reached a peak in 1910 and has been falling ever since as regulated utilities stopped selling their waste heat. Nowadays the norm is to simply discard the extra heat. Thermal power utilities today only deliver 1/3 of the power in the fuel they burn to customers. The other 2/3is simply discharged as waste heat! This 33%, efficiency level is the same as it was in 1957!

To make matters worse, the clean air act makes it dangerous for utilities to make efficiency improvements because it invites regulators to tighten emission controls as conditions for approval. Worse yet, the clean air act regulates the percent of pollutants (PPM) not the amount per kilowatt-hour (kWh) output. Currently, if you double efficiency the amount of pollutants you are allowed will be halved. Pollution standards should be changed to an output-based standard, such as grams per megawatt-hour (MWh) to stop these terrible unintended consequences. (For more how the power monopolies cling to their power, click on each of the bullet points on this page.)
Iceland provides an excellent example of the benefits of efficient energy use. It approaches power generation as a complete ecosystem where available heat is used with about 90% overall efficiency. The hot water from its geothermal wells is first used to generate electrical power. If the waste heat were discarded, this would be less than 20% efficient. But the wastewater is instead piped to nearby factories and used for drying fruits and vegetables or to run absorption chillers in a refrigeration plant.

The hot water that exits those applications is still pretty hot so it is sold for district heating to greenhouses and apartment buildings. Next in line are the lower temperature applications like fish farming, snow melting and bathing.
By making use of all of the heat instead of discarding it as waste, the efficiency of the entire system can be 90% or more even though the power plant itself is only 20% efficient! This amazing improvement in efficiency requires nothing more than designing with an expanded awareness that considers synergies that will turn waste into profit. The model for this is all around us in nature where nothing goes to waste.

This new paradigm has been extensively developed as industrial ecology and is closely related to the concept of permaculture. It is a new way of thinking that opens awareness beyond design in isolation to consider the design as part of an interrelated ecosystem. As energy costs increase, we can use this new thinking to maintain a gentler form of our current lifestyle by simply taking advantage of the synergies we have ignored in the past. In Europe they have a $6 billion project called Lo-Bin ($3 billion already EU funded) to develop a 98% efficient geothermal power project based on these principles.

In cases where it isn't convenient to pipe hot water or steam to where it is needed, an ORC generator can convert waste heat to electricity. These generators are essentially air conditioners running in reverse: The heat boils a low boiling point liquid driving a turbine which turns a generator. With minor redesign, an air conditioner can be converted to a waste heat generator that will convert heat to electricity. Small ORC generators based on this principle are just beginning to be released to the market.

Solar thermal heating and hot water has become very popular in China where the cost of rooftop solar collectors has become very competitive. Fifty million rooftops already have solar thermal collectors and the numbers in China are growing by 26% per year. These collectors are mostly arrays of concentric glass tubes with an insulating vacuum between them. A hot water tank provides energy storage. These systems could easily be converted to also provide power generation by just adding a small ORC power generator. Mini-generators are not available yet but they could be very inexpensive high-volume products. Since home air conditioners sell for only US $0.10/watt, they could be a very economical way to generate power in the home from the excess heat when the water is already hot enough. Currently, this excess heat is simply wasted.

Combined Heat and Power (CHP) cogeneration can be done in the home with 85% efficiency. Honda has sold over 45,000 of its Freewatt micro-CHP home heater/generators in Japan. The generator uses a very quiet, natural gas powered, internal combustion engine that has the usual 20% efficiency. The unit is installed in place of your furnace and runs only when heat is needed. When it is running, it puts out 1200 watts of electrical power to run your meter backwards. The 80% "wasted heat" works just fine as a furnace to heat your home!

Most industrial plants that were designed in the days of almost free energy release most of their energy into the air as waste heat. ArcelorMittal has a steel mill in Indiana that they retrofitted to recycle wasted energy. They were able to recover about 250 MW of power, cutting the power consumption of the plant in half! This is like building a new 250-MW power plant that will never need any fuel. The cost of the construction required was less than half of what it would have cost to build a coal power plant. (Watch a video interview with Tom Casten, chairman of RED, the company the worked on this project.)

In the US we don't hear much about cogeneration or CHP but Denmark generates 55% of their electricity this way and Finland and Holland do about 40 percent. When wasted power is recovered we are saved the trouble, expense and pollution of building another power plant to generate that power. If our utilities laws can be changed so that efficiency becomes profitable, we could see a doubling of plant efficiency in just a decade. Since 69% of our greenhouse gas emissions are from heat and power, doubling efficiency could reduce our emissions by 34%. Instead of spending billions of dollars building new power plants, we should be using ecological thinking to put to use the millions of megawatts of heat we throw away every day.

Get Free Updates: *Please click on the confirmation link sent in your Spam folder of Email*

Continue to read this post...

Collapse this post back.

Hydrogen Economy: Dream or Future

Hydrogen powered automobiles are a recurrent idea these days. Prototype hydrogen-powered cars are debuting in the United States, Japan and Europe. Two major issues are driving the Hydrogen Dream – Global Warming and Over-dependence on imported oil.

The idea of hydrogen economy is to utilize locally available and renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and biomass to produce hydrogen gas. Hydrogen can then be used in fuel cells to produce electricity without producing pollution; replacing gasoline and petroleum with hydrogen would decrease the consumption of petroleum and also reduce the carbon-dioxide emissions.

BUT.. is it realistic to think that inexpensive, pollution-free hydrogen energy will be the fuel of the future?

First of all hydrogen is not at all a primary source of energy. It is always chemically bound in organic compounds or water. We require some other source like fossil fuel, nuclear reactors, hydroelectric dams, geothermal wells, wind turbines or solar panels to break the chemical bonds and hence produce free hydrogen. So basically hydrogen economy is incomplete without a primary energy source.

Well we can use electrical energy too for electrolysis of water (direct current + water = hydrogen + oxygen). But this process is highly inefficient. Only 45% of the initial energy is captured in this process.

Then there are numerous other problems attached to Hydrogen. Storing hydrogen is perhaps the greatest hurdle. Compressed hydrogen gas is the only viable approach. Carbon-fiber tanks can hold hydrogen at 10,000 psi. However, thee tanks hold only one-eighth the energy of a gasoline tank of equal size.

Moreover, compressed gas at 10,000 psi can be extremely dangerous. The energy released by the sudden rupture of a 10,000 psi tank holding 6 kg of hydrogen is equivalent to 50 sticks of dynamite!!

Even liquid hydrogen ( at -250 °C) has only one-fourth of the energy per unit volume of gasoline.

To add to the problems, hydrogen is odorless and invisible and has a wide range of flammability.

So, how realistic is the vision of the Hydrogen economy ?? And when will it occur ?? I guess some fundamental breakthroughs are necessary to make hydrogen economy a reality but one more thing.. Is Hydrogen economy the right goal ??

CHEW ON THIS TOO: - Recent Developments
Recently I came across an article - “Hydrogen Balls: a safe fuel of future”. This was about hydrogen powered cars. Thought of mentioning it here.

Hydrogen gas is stored in small balls – “ping pong” balls to overcome the risk of fire and explosion. Lass Stenmark, Uppsala University says, “By storing the gas in round, spherical form, it can withstand twice the pressure that a cylindrical form can. If the car crashes and tank breaks, the hydrogen-filled balls would just spread out and roll away, and the gas from any broken balls would just simply seep out and disappear into the atmosphere without causing harm”

Sounds simple and exciting, lets wait and see the application part !!


By Associate Writer - Nidhi Garg

Get Free Updates: *Please click on the confirmation link sent in your Spam folder of Email*

Continue to read this post...

Collapse this post back.

Ethanol: How far, How Close

In recent years, everybody is dreaming about one cheaper & cleaner fuel ethanol. Though the cleanliness over its total life cycle is still a debatable point along with energy efficiency debates. I am considering few Nos which were presented in some othe blog for my visitors. In this we will see the total requirement & growth of Ethanol as fuel & as industry demand.

What is the total Oil demand of the world as whole. It is ~90 Million barrels/day, which gives us an annual demand of 32850 Million barrels/year. On the other hand world Ethanol production in 2005 was ~328 million barrels/day. Wonderfully it is only ~1% of the demand.

The rise in ethanol capcity in recent past has been ~15%/year which has caused a food grain price rise of 20-40% in last 3 years worldwide. So can you imagine the scenario if we go for even 20% replacement of oil - foregt about 100%. This is the scenario even if I delete all industrial demand of ethanol.

Add one more interesting factor that Ethanol's energy content is only 60% of the Gasoline / Oil content for the same mass as Ethanol is having 76 KBTU/Gallon while gasoline has 125KBTU/Gallon. So net equivalence is only 0.6% of current demand.

Energy production wise, I have already written my previous post Ethanol - Facts & Common Sense the lowest positive enrgy production says it produces 134 units of energy for every 100 Unit input. So we are basically generating (Even if I consider this report as 100% correct) than we are effective only 34/100 = 34%. While it is given as 74 units / 100 unit for gasoline. So it is having a net impact of 50% higher energy gain. Even if I consider this as a fact than also ethanol goes back to 0.9% equivalent to Oil demand.

Whereas actual fact is something different, as Oil production consumes ~1 Unit of energy for every 5 units of energy. Just a commonsense man ( No oil company will be able to make profit if it would have been consuming more than its content bcoz Oil is sold on the basis of its energy content not based on quantity). So Ethanol production itself is much more energy in-efficient.

Given this scenario, when food prices are rising steeply & grain shortage is there, I dont see even it is catching to 10% of the world oil demand in next 5 - 10 years period and if it does then be prepared for a world where no food will be available as currently the growth rate of agriculture sector in terms of produtivity is even less than 10% whereas we are talking about 100% rise every year at current levels.

How can you claim that Ethanol is a substitute for Oil......NO.....WAY. Forget it...

Moral - Never focus your strategy based on this wonderfully misleading fact which is fooling the globe.....

Get Free Updates: *Please click on the confirmation link sent in your Spam folder of Email*

Continue to read this post...

Collapse this post back.

HydroPower - Is it clean or not?

Opponents of dams have long argued against putting barriers in the natural flow of a river. Dams, they point out, prevent endangered fish from migrating, alter ecosystems, and threaten the livelihoods of local communities.

Native Americans, fishing communities, and environmentalists have made these arguments in their quest to decommission four dams on Klamath River, which runs from southwest Oregon to the coast of California. But with California requiring a 25 percent reduction in the state's carbon dioxide emissions by 2020, clean energy has suddenly entered the Klamath dam debate.

However, replacing the power from these dams could result in adding combustion emissions to the environment.

Hydro-Québec, the world's biggest producer of hydropower, claims that "compared with other generating options, hydropower emits very little greenhouse gas," thus "contributing significantly to the fight against climate change."

Maybe not. Recent reports on methane emissions suggest that dams are anything but carbon-neutral.

According to recently published estimates from Brazil's National Institute for Space Research, the world's 52,000 largest dams release 104 million metric tons of methane annually. If these calculations are correct, then dams would account for about four percent of the total warming impact of human activities -- and would constitute the largest single source of human-related methane emissions.

If methane released from reservoir surfaces, spillways, and turbines were taken into account, India's greenhouse emissions could be as much as 40 percent higher than its current official estimates. But, India as a developing nation, is not required to cut emissions -- and has yet to measure methane from its 4,500 dams. And that's a problem, because while methane does not last as long in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, its heat-trapping potential is 25 times stronger.

A Swirling Debate

In 2004, National Institute for Research in the Amazon suggested that a massive surge of methane emissions could occur when water is discharged under pressure at hydroelectric dams in a process known in the industry as "degassing."

The problem with dams is that organic matter gets trapped in them when land is first flooded, and more gets flushed in, or grows there, later on. In tropical zones, such as Brazil, this matter quickly decays to form methane and carbon dioxide.

But just how big a problem this creates is controversial. A debate has been raging for years between researchers connected to Hydro-Québec and Brazil's Electrobras, the world's largest hydropower companies, and several small teams of independent hydrologists.

According to Fearnside, if degassing emissions were factored in at several large hydropower plants in Brazil, then these dams would be larger contributors to global warming than their fossil fuel counterparts. To be precise, Fearnside suggested that during the first decade of its life, each of these dams would emit four times as much carbon as a fossil fuel plant that makes the same amount of electricity.

Fearnside's claims have triggered a firestorm. Luis Pinguelli Rosa, formerly of Electrobras but now based at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, claimed Fearnside had made "scientific errors," including a failure to grasp how degassing works, and so had exaggerated the emission levels.

Rosa pointed out that Fearnside had extrapolated his calculations from data taken from the Petit Saut dam in French Guyana in the years immediately following the creation of the reservoir, when organic matter, and thus methane emissions, would likely be their highest. Patrick McCully, executive director of the Berkeley, CA-based International Rivers Network, says that one of the areas of strongest disagreement among reservoir emissions researchers is how to quantify net emissions.

In a recent paper, "Fizzy Science," McCully shows that key factors influencing reservoir greenhouse gas emissions include fluctuations in water level, growth and decay of aquatic plants, decomposition of flooded biomass and soils, the amount of methane bubbling from the surface, and the amount of carbon dioxide diffusing in.

Get Free Updates: *Please click on the confirmation link sent in your Spam folder of Email*

Continue to read this post...

Collapse this post back.

Ethanol - Facts & Common Sense

Briefs

Brazil pioneered the use of Ethanol as a blend to gasoline for fuel use in commercial & public transport sector. Since then the science community is trying to identify alternative fuel which is easier to use, more efficient, cost effective & bla..bla..bla.......

I have read 3 major ones -

• Ethanol,


• Butanol (most Recent) &


• Dimethyl Ether (DME)

You will find many pros & cons of each of them...However my first focus is are they really going to contribute energy saving, cost saving, renewability (reducing environment emmission in totality) OR NOT...............

Energy Saving

The discussion on Energy saving in the production of these biofuels is not relevant to me. Becasue if we talk about this we are going to violate fundamnetal law of energy conservation. Total energy of the universe is conserved it can neither be created or destroyed only it can change from one form to another. So why to talk about it. It is already mentioned & proved that the projections from United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service Report number 814 titled "Estimating The Net Energy Balance Of Corn Ethanol: An Update" published in July of 2002 are completely misleading and there is no benefit in diverting food material for fuel production.

Its a gimmick played by US & EU to divert the attention of developing countries so that artificial food shortage can be created there & then they can improve their agriculture business by exporting food to them.

Anyway, this is not my area (May be I can discuss in comments section if somebody is interested), so we should consider the total energy in production & consumption both which are going to remain same combinedly for any fuel cycle. So if we do the comparison considering all factors including energy required for production of grains, It should not result in either deficit or surplus of the energy balance. However, no production process can have >100% efficiency. This is against thermodynamics.

It can be proven thermodynamically also by any expert. Following references are useful here

1. R-Squared Blog


2. USDA Report


3. 'Unsustainable subsidized food burning'


4. Agriculture Online

If Ethanol production is so much energy efficient (Lowest prjection of 35%) than that means every 100 Units of input energy can generate 135 Units & so on. Considering this growth, world can generate excess energy in just under 20 years based on current global consumption of ~3000 billion gallons / year of Eqv Oil and @1% growth rate in the consumption.

Ethanol production rate is kept same at same Biomass (in this maths calculation, which should have been done by so called experts with so much funding available from govt, agencies & whosoever is interested in improving his related business) be it corn, sugar cane or anything with the latest figures of efficient farming, production & conversion efficiencies which is considered only at 20 Billion gallons/year in the begining which is only 1/10 or 10% of current fossil fuel consumption.

Wow!

That means thereafter, we wont have any problem of energy shortage in the world.

Is it really so????????????????

The answer may be derived from the results of Brazil and is clearly NO.

I will post other issues related to this later as I see that

1. It is not a renewable & sustainable fuel.

2. It is going to pollute the environment in the same way as we do with fossil fuels.

3. Net energy content may be inefficient than fossil fuels.

4. Diverting attention of governments for policies related to social welfare due to subsidies.

5. No large scale sustainable future for Ethanol or any other food crops derived fuels.

Get Free Updates: *Please click on the confirmation link sent in your Spam folder of Email*

Continue to read this post...

Collapse this post back.

Butanol Vs Ethanol Vs Future..............????

Bio - Butanol

• Can be made from natural sugar or starch including waste materials.
• Costs less than ethanol.
• Has 92% of the energy content of gasoline.
• Mixes well with gasoline or ethanol.
• Evaporates more slowly than either gasoline or ethanol.
• Can be used in place of gasoline with no engine or fuel system changes.
• Makes usable hydrogen as a by product.
• Higher energy content (110,000 Btu’s per gallon for butanol vs. 84,000 Btu per gallon for ethanol). Gasoline contains about 115,000 Btu’s per gallon.
• Butanol is six times less “evaporative” than ethanol and 13.5 times less evaporative than gasoline, making it safer to use as an oxygenate.
• Butanol can be shipped through existing fuel pipelines where ethanol must be transported via rail, barge or truck.
• Butanol can be used as a replacement for gasoline gallon for gallon e.g. 100%, or any other percentage. Ethanol can only be used as an additive to gasoline up to about 85% and then only after significant modifications to the engine. Worldwide 10% ethanol blends predominate.

Its now has trade names of BioButanol, Butyl-Fuel, Butafuel and others.

Like ethanol, it is an alcohol that can be made from corn. It can also be made, at lower cost, from other raw materials.

Butanol is produced efficiently from sugar or starch by anaerobic fermentation. As example, it can use corn, grain, potatoes, sugar beets, grass, leaves, trees, kudzu or agricultural waste.

A recent technology breakthrough, made in Ohio, allows butanol to be made for as little as 85¢ a gallon from waste materials.

In this country, there is a pilot plant under construction to make butanol from milk sugar using waste from making cheese. It solves a waste disposal problem for cheese makers and makes fuel that can replace gasoline gallon for gallon.

In Great Britain, DuPont and BP are working together to convert an ethanol plant to butanol production. They will be using sugar beets as the raw material.

Does it really work as a motor fuel? Yes, it was demonstrated during the summer of 2005. A stock 1992 Buick Park Avenue was driven for 10,000 miles around the USA using 100% Butanol as fuel. There were no problems. The was still running strong at the end of the tour.

The Buick was tested for pollution emissions by 10 of the states that it visited. It passed the tests in all 10 states. Its tail pipe emissions were much cleaner than any gasoline fueled engine.

In actual driving conditions, butanol has a strong power and torque content. Drivers will use a lighter foot on the accelerator and hold a higher gear longer.

The Buick had mileage checks that ranged from 24 to 28 mpg on butanol. The same car had averaged 22 mpg using gasoline. So it has got higher efficinecy by 10-30%.

Butanol is also being evaluated for use in Bio Diesel mixes and as a fuel for jet aircraft.

You will be hearing more about the bio butanol as development continues. It has the potential of reducing our dependence on imported fossil fuels. In addition, it can reduce the stress on the environment.

I will put my comments on different Bio Fuels later..............

Get Free Updates: *Please click on the confirmation link sent in your Spam folder of Email*

Continue to read this post...

Collapse this post back.

World Environment Day - Some Pledges

My Company’s Message on World Environment Day

1. I will boil only the water I need, rather than filling the kettle every time.

If you boil a full kettle three times a day you’ll raise carbon dioxide emissions by 52kg a year. It takes two trees to absorb that amount. If you only boil the water you need each time, you’ll save energy and reduce your carbon dioxide emissions by more than 7kg a year.

· Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which contributes to climate change. We need to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we release to limit the effects of climate change.

· Although trees can be planted to absorb some of this carbon dioxide, we really need to use up less energy in the first place.

2. I will replace two light bulbs in my house with energy saving versions.

Over one year, it would take 13 trees to absorb the 40kg of carbon dioxide you would have emitted into the air.

· The release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, contributes to climate change. We are experiencing more floods and droughts, and wildlife and plants are also affected.

· Countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol must reduce their carbon dioxide emissions.

· Reducing the amount of electricity we use will mean that less fuel is burned for the generators that supply it. Doing this will also save you money.

3. I will turn my biodegradable waste into compost for my garden

Each person dumps 194kg of organic waste a year. That is the equivalent of 12,900 apple cores.

· Much of the waste we produce is collected by local authorities and burned or buried in landfill sites. Burning creates carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to climate change. Landfill is also unsustainable, as we cannot keep creating more landfill sites.

· The only solution is to reduce the amount of waste we produce, or do something else with it. When you shop, try to find items with less packaging, and when you produce waste such as leftover food, put it in a compost bin and watch your garden bloom.


4. I will volunteer for a green project in my local community.

Many projects are completely reliant on volunteers giving up their time. The sort of projects you could do can range from litter picking, to planting trees, to running a green event.

· Trees planted absorb this carbon dioxide release caused by the burning of fossil fuels etc.

· You’ll also get the opportunity to meet lots of new people, develop new skills and put something back into the community.

5. I will reuse plastic bags for my shopping.

If you throw away four fewer plastic bags every week, you’ll save 4,160 bags from ending up in landfill sites over 20 years.

· Landfill space is limited and will eventually run out if we continue to increase the amount of rubbish we produce. Although there are alternative ways of disposing of rubbish, the best option is to produce less in the first place.

· Plastic bags also spoil the look of our environment. If we re-use the bags we already have, this will mean that fewer new ones are made... and then abandoned.

· Many supermarkets will sell you a “bag for life” which you can reuse, or you could just reuse standard plastic bags by taking a few with you when you go shopping.

6. I will share my car journeys to work with a colleague, or replace those car journeys with public transport.

The average car commuter drives 19 miles a day. Cutting that by half through car sharing would save 648kg of carbon dioxide over one year, the same as that absorbed by 216 trees.

· Carbon dioxide is one of the gases that contribute to climate change when it is released. Planting more trees is an impractical option, and we really need to reduce the amount of energy we use to cut down carbon dioxide emissions.

· Walking or cycling, even just once or twice a week, can help reduce emissions and it has financial benefits. Walking to the bus stop can also contribute to the 10,000 steps a day we all need to do to improve our health.

7. I will switch off my television or computer screen, rather than leave it on stand-by.

Over a year this will save 30kg of carbon dioxide from being emitted into the air - the same as that absorbed by 10 trees.

· The release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, contributes to climate change. We are experiencing more floods and droughts, and wildlife and plants are also affected.

· Although trees can be planted to absorb some of this carbon dioxide, we need to use up less energy in the first place. Reducing the amount of electricity we use will mean that less fuel is burned for the generators that supply it.

· Countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol must reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. Doing this will also save you money.

8. I will take showers instead of baths.

A daily bath uses 16, 425 liters more water a year than a shower.

· Even though the INDIA gets a lot of rain each year, but this is not in every state of INDIA, the density of our population means that water supplies are limited and must be looked after carefully.

· Many underground water sources rely solely on winter rainfall to fill them up. As summers become longer and hotter, this reduces the time that water sources can be refilled.

· We all need to make an effort to save water, or we could face drought in many parts of the country.

9. I will use an outdoor clothesline instead of a clothes dryer

The electricity used to run clothes dryer results in emission of carbon dioxide. Burning fossil fuels, such as coal is not a sustainable way of providing energy, as fossil fuels will eventually run out.

· Although trees can be planted to absorb some of this carbon dioxide, we need to use up less energy in the first place. Reducing the amount of electricity we use will mean that less fuel is burned for the generators that supply it. Doing this will also save you money.

10. I will turn the tap off when I brush my teeth.

If you brush your teeth for three minutes, twice a day with the tap running while you clean your teeth, you are wasting 10,950 liters of water a year.

· Many underground water sources rely solely on winter rainfall to fill them up. As summers become longer and hotter, this reduces the time that water sources can be refilled.

· We all need to make an effort to save water, or we could face drought in many parts of the country.

11. I will switch my household to energy generated from renewable sources.

The electricity used by the average household results in 1,892 kg of carbon dioxide. You can reduce that to zero by switching your electricity supply to a green tariff. That is the equivalent of planting 631 trees.

· Burning fossil fuels, such as coal is not a sustainable way of providing energy, as fossil fuels will eventually run out.

· Coal burning releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and contributes to climate change. There are a variety of alternatives we can use such as wave, wind or solar. All of these have various advantages and disadvantages but one thing is clear. We do need to move away. Doing this will also save you money.

12. I will recharge ground water by the method of rainwater harvesting in my house.

Even though the INDIA gets a lot of rain each year, but this is not in every state of INDIA, the density of our population means that water supplies are limited and must be looked after carefully.

· We all need to make an effort to conserve water, or we could face drought in many parts of the country.

· Many underground water sources rely solely on rainfall to fill them up. As summers become longer and hotter, this reduces the time that water sources can be refilled.

If Anyone of us take any one resolutions out of above 12, I will feel happier to contribute something to our society.

Get Free Updates: *Please click on the confirmation link sent in your Spam folder of Email*

Continue to read this post...

Collapse this post back.