If you live in Louisiana you likely use twice as much electricity as a New Yorker, according to a recent article in the Huffington Post. Maps created from data at the U.S. Energy Information Administration show electricity use and cost by state. How much does electricity cost in your neck of the woods?

How Much Does Electricity Cost By State?

The maps measured price per capita and electricity usage of energy converted from coal, natural gas, or renewable sources. My state, South Carolina, for example, is among the highest in energy consumption per residential utility customer (kWh) along with Virginia, Kentucky, Texas, Tennessee, and most of the Southeastern U.S. The Northeast on the other hand, including Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York along with Hawaii and Alaska had the lowest usage.

Not sure how much electricity costs in your state? Take a look at this map.

The cost of electricity per capita seemed to be a big motivator. Electricity costs in the north were consistently among the highest in the nation including states like Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. While states like West Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, and California had the lowest energy costs.

As of 2009, the residential sector became the largest consumer of electricity at 39.6 percent followed by the commercial sector at 35.7 percent and the industrial sector at 24.5 percent. In all, residential energy generates 21 percent of CO2 emissions in the U.S. (twice as much as your car).

Wanna reduce your impact? It’s easier than you think wherever you are considering that 50 percent of U.S. consumers have access to alternative sources of energy. Many power companies offer what’s called green pricing which allows customers to pay a small premium for energy generated from renewable sources. And even if renewable energy isn’t available in your area you can buy green certificates that contribute to the generation of clean energy.

Related on EcoSalon

5 Cool Gadgets to Help You Save Electricity

EPA Proposes the Strongest Actions Yet to Cut Emissions

An Examination of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Image: David Harris

The post How Much Does Electricity Cost in Your State? appeared first on EcoSalon.

We hope, pray, and protest for a clean energy future, but is it really possible? And how can we ensure that it’s clean energy for all, and not just the wealthy few?

When’s the last time you made dinner by candle light or used a kerosene lamp to help your kids with their homework? Probably never, unless a freak storm knocked your power out. While flipping a switch is something we take for granted, more than one billion people lack access to reliable electricity, according to the International Energy Agency and the World Bank.

Although the U.S. consumes a disproportional amount of energy, slowly but surely more of it is coming from renewable sources. The same can’t be said for other nations, where population growth vastly outstrips grid capacity. In China, India, and many African nations, coal-fired power plants are popping up faster than developed countries are closing them down. Although it’s been said that renewable energy could power the world, energy inequality stands in the way of true global freedom from fossil fuels.

The United Nations’ “Sustainable Energy for All” campaign combines the efforts of international organizations in hopes of encouraging developing nations to adopt cleaner, more efficient technology from the start. To meet the ambitious goal of giving every human access to electricity by 2030, the UN has set out 3 objectives. Read more about them below, then scroll through the striking infographic to see how far we still have to go.

Universal Access 

With so much abundant electricity, it’s hard for us to realize all of the ways it impacts and enhances our lives. In countries where light and power comes from open fires or kerosene generators, however, the difference is palpable. “Electricity enables children to study after dark. It enables water to be pumped for crops, and foods and medicines to be refrigerated,” states the UN website. “Modern fuels for cooking and heating relieve women from the time-consuming drudgery and danger of traveling long distances to gather wood.” According to the campaign, private sector investment is key to opening up access in remote and underserved areas.

Energy Efficiency

In areas that have access to electricity, a key to a clean energy future is ensuring that none of it goes to waste. When each watt does more, it frees up valuable resources for those who have typically gone without. “Investing in efficiency is critical to meeting future energy demand and mitigating climate change,” states the UN. “It reduces greenhouse gas emissions and improves productivity. By reducing energy demand, efficiency also makes renewable energy more affordable – shrinking the size of the solar panel needed to power a lamp, for example. Moving to sustainable energy and using it efficiently makes sense in a resource constrained global economy.”

Renewable Energy

All the energy conservation in the world won’t help us if fossil fuels remain our main source of producing electricity. In order to truly attain a cleaner, more equitable world for all, developing nations must have the same access to renewable energy technologies as those in the developed world. “Increasing the share of energy from renewable sources can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and local pollution; insulate countries from fuel price volatility; and improve those countries’ balance of payments,” states the UN. “Achieving the Secretary-General’s objective of doubling that percentage by 2030 requires support from all sectors of society, including individuals.”

Image: nrdcpix

The post How Do We Achieve Clean Energy Access For All? appeared first on EcoSalon.

PG&E’s safety codes and corporate responsibility seem questionable at best.

Pacific Gas & Electric, the same people people who brought you Hinkley groundwater contamination (the one with cancer, not the one with Julia Roberts) would like you to know that they feel just terrible about all of the recent explosions. And also some of the older ones, like the one that mutilated nine Bernal Heights firefighters in 1963. And definitely the San Bruno blast that killed eight people last year. But darned if those ancient, cracked pipes just won’t stop shattering unexpectedly and turning leafy neighborhoods into nightmarish, flame-ravaged hellscapes when you put off fixing them for five or eight decades!

Chris Johns, the president of PG&E, explained that the company was “deeply sorry” to have caused the explosion, in a tone that came off roughly as apologetic as Reed Hasting’s latest blog post about changing Netflix DVD delivery. Look, PG&E would like to fix the hundreds of rusty, improperly welded pipes crisscrossing the Bay Area left over from the Truman administration. In an ideal world, would a substantially smaller number of their products and services kill people? Of course. Would they set fewer homes on fire? Sure, why the hell not. But we don’t live in that magical fantasy land with “safety codes” and “corporate responsibility” and “PG&E not making your house blow up.”

Do you have any idea how many memos that PG&E employees have sent each other over the last 20 years? At least 250,000, according to the 250,000 memos they were forced to recently submit to the California Public Utilities Commission. Well, give or take a few internal messages. Specifically the ones concerning historical, metallurgical practices and upkeep, or “why our pipes keep setting everybody on fire.” What do you expect from them? To keep records of all of these memos in some sort of, I don’t know, centralized mainframe data center? A series of computers? When they’re already running themselves ragged trying to put out all the fires?

But they really are working on making things better. They bought three solar power plants! And what is the sun if not a big, friendly, helpful series of explosions? So stop worrying. And just ignore that odd, faint hissing noise and vague metallic smell. It’s probably nothing.

Image: Indybay.org

The post PG&E Trying Very Hard Not to Kill Everybody appeared first on EcoSalon.

The World Cup finals are Sunday and, if you’re like me, you’ll think nothing of picking up the remote and tuning into the game. In fact, as usual, I probably won’t think much of flipping a lot of switches this weekend – my coffee-maker, laptop, electric lights; hell, my Prius, the electric wonder that will probably scoot me out to stock up on chips and guac before game time.

Which is why the following has me thinking. According to UN-Habitat, an estimated 560 million people live without electricity in sub-Saharan Africa (this year’s World Cup is taking place is in South Africa), including residents of Kenya’s Kibera, the largest slum settlement in the region. Situated in Nairobi, Kibera is “home” to almost one million people and only about 20 percent of people residing there have electricity.

In light of what it means to live without electricity, I know the tournament doesn’t even register as a footnote when seen in terms of life’s necessities. But there are lot of people residing in the Cup’s host continent, including a lot of kids no doubt, with a passion for the sport that I can’t even begin to fathom, who are cut off from witnessing sports’ – their sport’s – greatest spectacle.

A little ray of hope, however, comes from Solafrica.ch, a Swiss nonprofit organization that started the Kibera Youth Solar Project, which is training Kiberan kids to “assemble and repair solar technology.” To televise the games locally, Solafrica has worked with a couple dozen youth to help them hook up “open-air” television sets and projectors to a solar power-station with photovoltaic solar panels and batteries. At the end of the World Cup, the station (which can provide light and charge mobile phones and other small devices) will be installed in a nearby school to provide power for a number of local needs.

“The Kibera youths have now conquered the power of the sun,” said Solafrica Executive Director Joshiah Ramogi, who spun the group off from Greenpeace, which is also involved in supporting the effort. Quoted in Techworld, he added, “We want to show the residents of the slums the benefits of solar technology. We want to convince them to adopt new solar LED technology that will benefit them and their children.”

Image: Dundas Football Club

The post Soccer Sunshine: Game On in Africa’s Largest Slum appeared first on EcoSalon.

Myths abound when it comes to our health. Back in the olden times, before the internet made data instantaneous, information was found in books and microfiche. If we had a strange bump on our hands, we’d have no choice but to actually go see a doctor for it. And not Google “hand cancer symptoms” only to discover that the bump was dried cupcake frosting.

Has the internet made health myths worse? Probably not. But they have made them much easier to explore! Check out five of our favorite health myths to see if they are very true, so false, or somewhere in between.

You must drink eight glasses of water a day.

And this is – false. The average person loses ten cups of water a day, a cup being eight ounces. But you regain four cups from simply eating. So you just need to drink six cups of water to make up the difference. Some nutritionists think you don’t need more than one liter a day. Others will go to their death bed swearing that eight glasses a day is the key to all good health.

The final word comes from Heinz Valtin, a doctor who specialized in kidney research for 45 years. He recently told Scientific American that the answer is no – there are no health benefits to drinking an excessive amount of water daily.

You will ruin your eyes reading in dim light.

I was a big reader as a kid. To the point that if I didn’t get my daily Judy Blume/Laura Ingalls Wilder/LM Montgomery fix, I went a little nutty. Needless to say, there was a lot of reading at night in dim light. When my eyesight went from good to “legally-blind with corrective vision” (Thank you, Lasik!) in a matter of a couple years, some blamed my excessive reading in bad light.

Where they right? Apparently not. But reading in dim light can certainly strain your eyes – it’s just that those itchy, burning tired eyes will restore themselves. No permanent damage is possible.

Pregnancy makes you crazy.

This health myth is common among my friends, who are bearing progeny like there’s no tomorrow. (It’s true – last Mother’s Day I had six friends celebrating their first one, not to mentioned the seasoned mommas among my peeps.) And most of them reported the worst emotional manipulation since kittens started starring on YouTube.

But does pregnancy make you crazy? Not permanently. But if you have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD,) new evidence shows that pregnancy hormones can make it worse. In a study that looked at women’s symptoms, researcher found that they worsened, a good one-third of the time during pregnancy.

If you pluck your hair, more grows back.

On an episode of Sex and the City, or “The Show That was Great Before the Second Sequel,” Samantha is upset over a grey hair. She goes to pluck it but decides against it. As she tells our heroine Carrie Bradshaw, “If you pluck it, ten more will come to its funeral.” Now quickly skimming over the fact that I can recite Sex and the City from memory – is Samantha’s anxiety based in truth?

No, no, and more no, according to experts. When your shaved hair grows back, it is initially short and stubbly. The longer hair is, the softer it becomes. So while it may seem like the gods are punishing you for taking a razor to unwanted hair – it’s really just the biology of your body.

Using a cell phone will give you a brain tumor.

Cell phones channel dirty electricity, and all of this dirty electricity has evolved into what experts called “electro-smog.” According to sources, electro-smog is the invisible pollution or smog in the form of EMFs from the now widespread microwave-emitting devices such as mobile phones, their masts, wireless routers and DECT phones. Wired Child is a group that provides a comprehensive guide on how to protect themselves and their children from EMFs and transients.

So will your cell phone give you a brain tumor? Frankly, it seems that the jury is still out on this. Would I invest in a device that keeps “electro-smog” away from your brain? I’m calling Verizon Wireless to order one right now. Or not.

Image: flickr4jazz

The post Your Cell Phone Will Give You Cancer – and Other Fun Health Myths! appeared first on EcoSalon.

Some of my best friends enjoy going to the gym. They say they get a charge out of a good workout, a buzz from a good schvitz. I have to admit, though, I never was much of a gym rat. I mean, take a walk or ride a bike and go somewhere, do something. Exercise, to me, should be a value-add. Running on a treadmill or riding a stationary bike seems kind of, well, like going nowhere.

That caveat aside, from where I sit (emphasis on “sit”), someone’s finally come up with a way to make workouts do some work. A company called ReRev is retrofitting cardio gym equipment to turn the kinetic motion of your aerobic workout into DC (direct current) power that feeds back into a building’s electrical system. The current is fed into a ReRev box where it’s converted into utility-grade AC (alternating current), the form of electricity our homes and businesses know and love. That’s free – working up a sweat aside – electricity with no maintenance required.

According to ReRev, the system can turn a typical 30-minute workout into 50 watt hours of clean electricity. That’s enough to power a laptop for an hour, charge your cell phone six times, or power a compact fluorescent light (CFL) for two and a half hours.

The system is installed at a growing number of facilities across the country, including venues at a bunch of universities, such as Florida, Kentucky, Chico State in Northen California, and Drexel in Philadelphia (pictured above). In fact, your gym could be ideal for a ReRev system, depending on its workout volume and amount of equipment.

And if you’re interested, the ReRev site has a nifty form you can fill out about your gym master (Is that what they’re called? I wouldn’t even know).

The post A Light Workout appeared first on EcoSalon.

Facebook is the second largest website in the US and the default social network of many environmental activists, where they (ok, we) go to develop supportive networks, raise awareness and funds for good causes. It’s also a platform for some excellent, environmental-fundraising games like Lil’ Green Patch (acquired by social games company Playdom in 2009) and Sea Garden (a MobScience game).

Obviously the environmental community, on and off Facebook, felt betrayed when the social media leader, in late January, announced its plans to build a data center in Prineville, Oregon that will be contrarily LEED-gold certified, yet run on coal power.

Yes, coal – that’s lump in your stocking, fine particles in the air and lungs, carbon dioxide-emitting coal.

Facebook’s data center electricity provider in Oregon will be PacifiCorp., a utility that is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, and generates most of its power from coal according to reports by SearchDataCenter.

The information and communications technology sector, according to Gartner research, is already as bad as and quickly surpassing the aviation industry in terms of global CO2 emissions. Why would Facebook – which has enjoyed a reputation as a game changer, and innovator – make the ICT sector worse, by going with the fuel that the Natural Resources Defense Council identifies as a top source of mercury pollution in the U.S., and a health threat to all who live near coal power plants?

End users do like free, or ad-sponsored Facebook. And coal power remains cheaper than cleaner alternatives like natural gas, or hydroelectric power (which has its own problems including damaging fish populations and rivers). But Facebook has said in a series of interviews that it focused on building an efficient data center, rather than the source of power it will use. We’re surprised an industry leader thought one good thing was good enough.

Is it unreasonable to ask Facebook to offer its services free to end users, but to buy more expensive, green power? Or, given their lack of environmental responsibility on this one, would you be willing to abandon your Facebook profile entirely?

Basic Reading:

“Criticism from Greenpeace and Change.org has attracted national attention within the information technology industry, catching Facebook off guard. ‘This has been a big learning experience for us,’ said Facebook spokeswoman Kathleen Loughlin. ‘We’re six years old. We’ve never owned a data center before. We’ve never owned land before…The energy source is one factor,’ Loughlin said, ‘but how we’re going to use that energy is another equally important, if not more important, factor to consider.'” A news feature by Mike Rogoway for The Oregonian

“After having rented out data center space in Silicon Valley and elsewhere for years, Facebook is now building its own data center in scenic Prineville, located in central Oregon. It’s a symbolic step for the company, which started out on an $80/month shared server just under six years ago.” – An InsideFacebook article detailing some of the efficient features planned for the company’s new data center

“For the first time Facebook will have its own facility but unlike Google or Microsoft, which both built data centers in the same area running off hydroelectric power, Facebook’s facility will be powered by dirty coal…” – An anti-coal petition from Change.org to Facebook’s CEO, with about 8,000 signatures as of Feb. 25, 2010

“The only truly green data centers are the ones running on renewable energy…Given the massive amounts of electricity that even energy-efficient data centers consume to run computers, backup power units, and power related cooling equipment, the last thing we need to be doing is building them in places where they are increasing demand for dirty coal-fired power.” – GreenPeace press officer Daniel Kessler via a HuffingtonPost op-ed

Further Resources:

“Coal accounts for a fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide,” reported in the New York Times‘ Green Inc. blog

A story on the waste problems created by coal power plants in B’More Green

A round-up of some of the green IT practices and technologies used by tech giants including Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Facebook from Earth2Tech

Ironically, last April, Intel called for users to submit ideas via Facebook video submission about How to Green Data Centers, via Treehugger

A “clean coal” debunking site ThisIsReality.org that includes a public service announcement ad created by the Coen brothers

Image: Nick Perla

Editor’s note: This is the latest installment of EcoMeme, a column featuring eco news, tech and trends by EcoSalon writer and columnist Lora Kolodny.

The post EcoMeme: Facebook Under Fire for Coal Powered Data Center appeared first on EcoSalon.

America runs on coal. It creates half of our electricity. And the unclean technology producing this source may be killing our children, grandchildren and the future unborn, not to mention our natural environment.

Is the fed sensing the urgency to limit the damage from this source we depend upon?

Not according to three environmental groups looking for clean coal technology. They are planning to sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for being blatantly lax in limiting toxic discharges from power plants that threaten the health of local communities exposed daily to the pollutants.

According to Planet Shifter, the federal government is 26 years behind setting restrictions on the discharges which contaminate ground and surface waters and threaten aquatic life. Apparently, the EPA should have limited coal ash discharges to meet its own requirements for annual environmental reviews.

Back in December when a coal ash spill occurred at the Tennessee Kingston Fossil Plant, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson promised to issue regulations by the end of the year for nearly 600 coal plants with on-site coal ash storage ponds or landfills.

But the three groups planning to sue: the Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club and the Environmental Integrity Project argue “the EPA need to stop kicking the can down the road and set a date for the regulation.”

There is evidence that these coal plants discharge millions of pounds of toxic pollutants every year. According to the report, in  Kingston, alone, more than 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash spilled from a coal-ash holding pond last December when a earthen wall ruptured. The ash contains elevated levels of arsenic, selenium and lead, among other toxic substances.

In a 60 Minutes investigation on harmful waste by-products from coal, it was revealed that the tremendous amount we burn for electricity every year generates 130 million tons of waste. They even interviewed coal barons who have become rich off coal, who admitted being responsible for those smoke stacks that pump out 100-million tons of carbon dioxide every year.

Most of the waste emitted from power stations  is coal ash which is dangerous to humans and other living things. Environmental scientists tell us that the concentrations of mercury, arsenic, lead and other toxic metals are considerably higher in coal ash than in ordinary soil.

When properly disposed of  in dry, lined impoundments, coal ash is considered to be safe. But observers say it is often dumped into wet ponds (nearly 500 of them in the U.S.)  and in those cases the ash could pose health risks to the nearby communities.

Images: Tennessee Valley Authority, Earth Observatory, NASA

The post EPA Taking Heat Over Toxic Emissions from America’s Coal Plants appeared first on EcoSalon.

Fighting for a hybrid in every garage is cake compared to the battle to allow an outdoor clothesline in every yard. Still,  advocacy groups like Project Laundry List are urging a return to the days before newfangled cleaning machines drained our electric bills and resources – a time when nobody flinched at the sight of a big bra or jockey shorts flapping in the wind.

Why do these soldiers refuse to fold?

The advocacy group New American Dream calculates that if every American home switched to cold water for four out of five loads, together we can save $6.7 billion per year and keep nearly 50 million tons of carbon out of the atmosphere – the equivalent of removing 10 million cars from the road.

If only 40% of those households also line dried their clothes, the annual carbon savings would more than double.

Founded by Alexander Lee of Condord, NH, Project Laundry List has established a website that tracks states with ordinances banning outdoor clotheslines, such as Oregon. You can watch a compelling CBS video on the site of a feature Bill Geist did about a Bend woman engaging in civil disobedience in her subdivision by fighting for her right to conserve energy.

Nationwide, some 300,000 communities with home owner associations restrict outdoor laundry hanging, according to the Community Associations Institute.

Lee and others argue it is ridiculous to have to fight to hang clothes in your own backyard, and has spurred a national movement of likeminded enviromentalists. He has gone so far as to suggest the Obama White House reinstate clotheslines on the lawn as it once had in the early 1900s. You can vote for this as well, on the site.

Lee and his Laundry List have weight behind them with board advisors that include famed forward thinker,  Dr. Helen Caldicott and Dick McCormack, a former Vermont State Senator who re-introduced the Right to Dry bill in 1999, which his brother had introduced almost 10 years earlier. It resulted in passage this year, making it no longer a crime to do the right thing.

Helping push the bill along in Vermont was the owner of the wholesome Vermont Country Store. Owner Lyman Orton has written editorials in his national catalog and other media to egg on  homeowners to “set up a clothesline and hang your wash out even if you live in a neighborhood or subdivision where doing so is prohibited.” He asks rhetorically, “Is it not the height of snobbery to ban hanging clothes out to dry?”

Even before Vermont lawmakers got their act together, Orton was selling clothesline products, such as sheets specifically designed to billow in the breeze.

There are many such “Laundry Heroes” identified by Project Laundry List, including actress Daryl Hannah, Vermont Governor Jim Morris and Premier Dalton McGuinty of Ontario, Canada (above), who signed a rule allowing millions in the Province of Ontario to hang dry to their heart’s content.

To review more of the group’s accomplishments, check out the site and see what you can do to further the cause. Your backyard is standing by and waiting for you to feed it a line.

Ontario premier lifts outdoor clothesline ban (CTV.ca)

Images: Cyron, Vermont Country Store, CTV

The post Civil Disobedience in the Subdivision: Project Laundry List appeared first on EcoSalon.

When the people of Thailand coordinated an intentional blackout in response to a fuel crisis in 2005, the World Wildlife Fund recognized the enormous impact such a statement could make on a global level.

While Australians were the primary participants during the first official Earth Hour in 2007, the word has spread like wildfire since those pivotal sixty minutes when 2.2 million residences and businesses went dark.

In 2008, more than 400 cities in 35 countries shared in this environmental effort, from individuals to monumental landmarks like the Colosseum, Golden Gate Bridge and Sydney Opera House for a grand total of 50 million people.

What’s in store this year? 2100 cities in 82 committed countries aim for a following of a billion concerned conservationists this Saturday evening, March 28th, between 8:30 and 9:30, including famous sites like the Great Pyramids of Giza, Sphinx, Petronas Towers and Acropolis.

Image: joiseyshowaa

The post Earth Hour 2009 appeared first on EcoSalon.