Tag Archives: fahrenheit

Would You Build a Compost Powered Hot Tub?

How would you like to take some lawn waste, use it to heat your hot tub for 18 monthsandbe left with a huge pile of rich compost at the end of the project?

It sounds like the last scene from Back to the Future, right?

Well, Tom Bartels of Durango, CO is a very inventive gardener and has figured this out. The best part is that its a project that anyone can do with enough space and time to assemble it. The materials are all readily available, no flux capacitor necessary.

How It Works

You know how compost gets hot as it decomposes? Most gardeners would be familiar with that effect but few have ever considered harnessing that heat for any real purpose. But it can be done.

Tom uses a large quantity of wood chips (and a few other minor ingredients) to power his off-the-grid hot tub. It ends up being a 6 foot tall compost pile that he insulates with leaves. The hot tub itself is insulated only with straw bales and a foam topper.

He uses an electric pump to circulate the closed-loop system, which costs him a whopping $3.27 per month in electricity. Hook it up to a solar panel and it would be totally off the grid!

Consistently Hot Water in Freezing Weather

The water temperature in the hot tub stays between 104 to 110 degrees Fahrenheit all day, every day. Any time he wants to take a dip, the water is piping hot, without fossil fuels used to heat the 250 gallons of water.

All his data collection for the project was done over 2 months from mid-December to mid-February in Colorado with nighttime temperatures in thesingle digits.

Tom estimates that this heat production will continue for 18 months (!) after which the temperature will decline due to the compost maturing.

Pays for Itself in Year One

The cost to set all this up was about $700, mostly for the pump and pipes. But get thisthe market value of the organic compost is $700-$1,200!

So it pays for itself (or more) in the first year; every year thereafter is effectively free because the pump and piping are reusable and the wood chips that provide the fuel are waste material that landscaping companies are happy to get rid of.

Use It for Anything

Tom made a hot tub but what he created is just a system that produces heat from yard waste. You could use that heat for any purpose including:

Heating a house using a radiant floor
Heating a green house
Heating aquaponic fish tanks
And more; its limited only by your imagination…

Want More Info?

You can get complete details on how to create this system for free, fromToms website. He teaches this method in one of hisfree webinars.

Sabrina Wilson is a natural health enthusiast and a staff writer for the Organic Daily Post. Originally from Boston, MA, she is a recovering Lyme disease sufferer who attributes her recovery to naturopathic remedies and an obsessively clean diet. Find similar posts on Twitter @organicdailypst

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Source – 

Would You Build a Compost Powered Hot Tub?

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Would You Build a Compost Powered Hot Tub?

America Uses Fahrenheit. The Rest of the World Uses Celsius. America Is Right. The Rest of the World Is Wrong.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Vox has a post up called “Why Americans still use Fahrenheit long after everyone else switched to Celsius.” In it Zack Beauchamp sides with the standard line that America should jump on the Celsius train and leave Troglodyte Station.

The bizarre measurements commonly used in the US, including Fahrenheit, are bad for its scientific establishment, its kids, and probably its businesses.

Susannah Locke lays out the case for Celsius and the rest of the metric system very persuasively, but here’s a brief recap. The simpler metric scales make basic calculations easier and thus less error-prone. American companies incur extra costs by producing two sets of products, one for the US and one for the metric using world.

American parents and caregivers are more likely to screw up conversion rates when they give out medicine, sending some children, who are more susceptible to overdoses, to the hospital. Further, American students have to be trained on two sets of measurements, making basic science education even more difficult.

Going back to Jefferson there have been many movements to get the US to metricate. Lincoln Chaffee wants to get the US to adopt the metric system, too.

But I am a red-blooded American boy who likes listening to Tom Petty and riding motorcycles and wearing blue jeans and using Fahrenheit so Vox‘s post made me think of this great chart from the wonderful site isomorphismes which explains why our temperature measurement system is the best temperature measurement system.

“Fahrenheit uses its digits more efficiently than Centigrade” isomorphism

Link to article: 

America Uses Fahrenheit. The Rest of the World Uses Celsius. America Is Right. The Rest of the World Is Wrong.

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on America Uses Fahrenheit. The Rest of the World Uses Celsius. America Is Right. The Rest of the World Is Wrong.

These Maps Show How Many Brutally Hot Days You Will Suffer When You’re Old

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Risky Business

One of the main difficulties in getting people to care about climate change is that it can be hard to notice on a daily basis. But the prospect of sweating profusely through your golden years? That’s more arresting.

If you’re aged 4-33 right now, the map above shows you how many very hot days—those with temperatures over 95 degrees Fahrenheit—you’re likely to experience by the time you’re elderly. It comes from a new report by the economics research firm Rhodium Group, which was commissioned by former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg; Henry Paulson, the Republican Treasury Secretary under George W. Bush; and Tom Steyer, the billionaire Bay Area entrepreneur and environmentalist.

Continue Reading »

View this article:

These Maps Show How Many Brutally Hot Days You Will Suffer When You’re Old

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Oster, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on These Maps Show How Many Brutally Hot Days You Will Suffer When You’re Old

Why Climate Change Has Darwin Down for the Count



Birds, reptiles, amphibians, and many other animals may not be able to adapt to rising temperatures. phrakt/Flickr If you live near water in the American southeast, you may have run across the green tree frog—or at least heard the species as it croaks (in a sound that kind of resembles rapid fire quacking). It’s a small frog that’s often found in pet stores. It’s the state amphibian of Louisiana and Georgia. And it’s one of many species of amphibians, reptiles, birds and even mammals that may be incapable of evolving fast enough to keep up with what global warming has in store. That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Ecology Letters, whose authors used a vast body of data on 540 separate species’ current climatic “niches,” and their evolutionary histories of adapting to different conditions, to determine whether they can evolve fast enough to keep up with the changing climate. More specifically, the study examined “climatic niche evolution,” or how fast organisms have adapted to changing temperature and precipitation conditions in their habitats over time. Under normal circumstances, the answer is very slowly. On average, the study found that animals adapted to temperature changes at a rate of less than 1 degree Celsius (or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) per million years. By contrast, global warming is expected to raise temperatures on the order of 4 degrees Celsius (or 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) in the next 100 years. “It seems like climate change is too fast, relative to how quickly the climatic niches of species typically evolve,” explains evolutionary biologist John Wiens of the University of Arizona in Tucson, who conducted the research along with a colleague at Yale University. Take the green tree frog. According to data provided by Wiens, the annual mean temperature in the species’ range across the U.S. Southeast is about 66 degrees Fahrenheit. For its closely related “sister” species the barking tree frog, meanwhile, it’s 65.3 degrees. The two species diverged some 13.4 million years ago, and their common ancestor is estimated to have lived in mean climatic conditions somewhere in between these two numbers, at 65.5 degrees. The rate of evolutionary change in response to temperatures for these frogs is therefore extremely slow—”about 100,000 to 500,000 times slower than the expected rate of climate change within the range of the species from 2010 to 2100,” says Wiens. Even if you take a species that evolved much more rapidly in relation to changing temperatures, the conclusion remains the same. The species still didn’t change fast enough in the past for scientists to think that it can evolve to keep up with global warming in the future. An example of a faster evolving species would be the Northern banded newt, which lives at relatively high altitudes in a range that spans from Russia to Turkey. Annual mean temperatures in its habitat are about 50.4 degrees Fahrenheit; but for a closely related species, the Southern banded newt, the average temperature is vastly different—65.7 degrees. The two species’ common ancestor is estimated to have lived only 350,000 years ago, amid mean temperatures of about 59.5 degrees. Adaptation to new climatic conditions among these newts thus happened much faster than among tree frogs—“but still about 1,600 to 4,700 times slower” than the kind of changes we expect from global warming, according to Wiens. In the new paper, Wiens and his co-author apply a similar analysis to several hundred other species, ranging from cranes to crocodiles and from hawks to turtles. And none adjusted to temperatures in the evolutionary past at anything like the rate at which temperature change is now coming. This does not mean that each and every species will go extinct. Some may shift their ranges to keep up with favorable temperatures. Some may perish in certain locales but not others. And some may find a means of coping in a changed environment. Just because these species have never experienced what climate change is about to throw at them doesn’t prove that they’re incapable of surviving it. Nonetheless, the new research as a whole validates a striking statement made recently by the renowned climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University. At a Climate Desk Live event in May, Mann remarked that there is “no evidence” from the planet’s past to suggest that life can adapt to changes as rapid as the ones we’ve now set in motion. Wiens’ data add an exclamation point to Mann’s statement. And it also raises an unavoidable question: What is going to happen to the species responsible for all of this, namely, humans? “Humans will be fine,” says Wiens, “because we have things like clothes and air conditioning.”

See the article here: 

Why Climate Change Has Darwin Down for the Count

Related Posts

Climate Change Is Making Canada Look More Like the United States
Slicing Open Stalagmites to Reveal Climate Secrets
Mapping a Plague of Frogs
An Emblem for Puerto Rico’s Climate Fight
This Town Was Almost Blown Off the Map

Share this:

Originally posted here – 

Why Climate Change Has Darwin Down for the Count

Posted in alo, ALPHA, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Monterey, ONA, Pines, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Climate Change Has Darwin Down for the Count

The world is producing 2.4 million pounds of CO2 a second

The world is producing 2.4 million pounds of CO2 a second

We have a correction to make. In an article last month we provided some erroneous information that may have painted an inaccurate picture of the state of the atmosphere. We stated that carbon dioxide emissions rose 2.5 percent in 2011. That figure appears to be incorrect.

The actual figure is probably 3 percent.

From The New York Times:

Emissions continue to grow so rapidly that an international goal of limiting the ultimate warming of the planet to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, established three years ago, is on the verge of becoming unattainable, said researchers affiliated with the Global Carbon Project. …

[T]he decline of emissions in the developed countries is more than matched by continued growth in developing countries like China and India, the new figures show. Coal, the dirtiest and most carbon-intensive fossil fuel, is growing fastest, with coal-related emissions leaping more than 5 percent in 2011, compared with the previous year. …

Over all, global emissions jumped 3 percent in 2011 and are expected to jump 2.6 percent in 2012, researchers reported in two papers released by scientific journals on Sunday. It has become routine to set new emissions records each year, although the global economic crisis led to a brief decline in 2009.

The Associated Press puts it in stark terms: the world is creating 2.4 million pounds of carbon dioxide every second. Since you loaded this page, here’s how much carbon dioxide the world has created:

And each of those pounds of carbon dioxide will stay in the atmosphere for at least a century.

So that update again: Global production of carbon dioxide was 3 percent higher last year, not 2.5 percent. We regret the error. And we regret the discovery of coal, too.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories


The world is producing 2.4 million pounds of CO2 a second

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The world is producing 2.4 million pounds of CO2 a second