Eco-Chick · The modern girl's guide to living green & fabulous.

Fast Food Making Good-For-You Biodiesel?

No Comments

by Starre Vartan · 08/21/08

Sporting green “veg” t-shirts and a positive outlook, they call themselves The Vegetable Energy Group, but they’re known simply as the “Veggie Girls” for short. The five shown here, all 18 year-old college students – Caitlyn Arigo, Audrey Faber, Rachel Lucas, Alyssa Tennant, and Aubrey Wynn – are on a mission to educate people about the benefits of alternative fuels and have fun along the way. Via: Greencar.com

Have any fast-food chains started making biodiesel from their used cooking oil? Is it difficult to do yourself?
—Amy Howard, Indianapolis, IN

Finally there’s a healthier side to the American love affair with fried food. The 4.5 billion gallons of fry oil annually left over from making those delicious greasy snacks that clog our arteries and add pounds to our hips could also cleanly power more than 10 percent of the nation’s diesel engines—more than 528,000 cars—for a year.

Matthew Howe, senior vice-president of McDonald’s UK, announced in 2007 that the company’s British fleet of 155 delivery trucks would switch to running on recycled vegetable oil collected from approximately 900 of the chain’s restaurants. McDonald’s spokespeople declined to answer whether the chain is considering something similar in this country. No other fast-food chain has made such an announcement (yet).

Even if burger chains aren’t pumping French fry fuel out back, some savvy fast-food purveyors have begun to show how it can be done. Robert Tomey, a McDonald’s franchisee in Amory, Mississippi, uses fry oil from his four stores to power his own VW Beetle and a Ford pickup truck. In addition to saving waste, biodiesel also scores points for being biodegradable, for creating almost no sulfur emissions (which cause acid rain), and for cutting hydrocarbon and particulate pollution from regular diesel emissions by up to half. Tomey says it has improved the performance of his vehicles, too.

David Hackleman, an engineering professor at Oregon State University who has driven cross-country in his fry oil–powered Dodge truck, says making your own fuel is simple—and costs only about a dollar a gallon. In addition to fast-food eateries, he recommends collecting grease from brewpubs and Japanese restaurants. With the proper know-how, do-it-yourselfers like him make their own fuel by mixing the collected oil with alcohol and lye, starting a chemical reaction that takes about an hour and a half to create biodiesel. The by-products are glycerine, an ingredient used in handmade soaps, and potassium hydroxide, sometimes used as fertilizer on farm fields. If making your own biodiesel sounds daunting (lye is corrosive, and the fumes from the chemical reaction can be dangerous if inhaled), Hack-leman advises letting someone else do the work. “People can also buy biodiesel from a commercial source,” he says. “It’s easier and encourages the growth of business.”

Originally printed as Starre’s “Green Guru” column for Audubon Magazine.

alternative fuel, biodiesel, cars, diesel, Energy

Greased Lightning: Veggie Greasecar

4 Comments

by Kimberly Jordan Allen · 07/11/08

Recently, my family has been considering going veggie at the pump. We are thinking we can help a few restaurants in our neighborhood by providing waste management for their used veggie oil!

At Greasecar you can learn all about running vehicles on vegetable oil. In their classifieds you can pick up a used diesel vehicle that is already converted or, if you are mechanically inclined, you can buy a kit and convert an existing diesel engine to SVO/WVO (straight veggie oil-made from crops- or waste veggie oil-used oil from restaurants) yourself.

It’s a pretty simple process you can do in your garage and once its done, all you have to do is filter the oil, and you can run your diesel vehicle FOR FREE on recycled fuel. In these times, when many are trying to get off the crude, this is a viable alternative. Most restaurants are happy to give you their used oil because they often have to pay for disposal.

There is some mixed information and controversy out there regarding SVO, WVO, and bio-diesel emissions. Greasecar maintains that using SVO/WVO that has been filtered is still better for the environment than straight diesel or gasoline. On their site they address this:

There is no sulfur content in vegetable oil which eliminates the first major carcinogen associated with diesel fuel. Vegetable oil plants absorb more carbon dioxide from the air during their growing cycle than is released when the oil is burned, this means that vegetable oil does not produce excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (this is referred to as carbon neutral). Due to a slightly cooler burn some studies have shown NOX reductions when burning vegetable oil. More studies are underway and results will vary depending on engine and tuning. As a sulfur free, bio-mass fuel vegetable oil emissions are less harmful to the environment and less toxic to people and animals.

There are some veggie systems that allow you to just pour oil right into the car with simple or minimal filtration, but this is ill advised, as it usually does harm to the engine and shortens the lifespan of the vehicle. Using dirty fuel can also increase emission output. Filtering the oil is a bit labour intensive, but to ensure smooth travels, it is worthwhile. Greasecar offers home and on-board filtration kits, depending on what is most convenient, and their motto is “FILTER, FILTER, FILTER.” The cleaner the fuel, the cleaner it burns and the longer your vehicle lasts.

The guys at Greasecar are very knowledgeable and helpful with any questions you may have. Business is booming for these alternative energy systems right now. There may be a bit of expense up front to get your vehicle up and running, but to avoid paying $4.59 a gallon, or anything for that matter, is worth investigation. You may smell like a french fry, but you’re smiling all the way to the bank, and maybe even minimizing that carbon footprint a little bit.

alternative fuel, cars, Energy, vegetable oil

Nature Kids, Hot Water Woes, and Pellet Stoves

7 Comments

by Starre Vartan · 02/01/08

I want my child to connect with nature, but how can a suburban park be designed to both protect visitors from Lyme disease–carrying ticks and restore the natural ecosystem?
—Lena Crandall, Scarsdale, NY

The funny thing about wildlife (even the kind that finds its way into parks and playgrounds in developed areas) is that it’s wild and therefore not completely controllable. In order to eliminate Lyme disease–carrying ticks, you would have to ban all warm-blooded animals and pave over the greenery. Still, you wouldn’t be creating an optimal environment for children. “In a matter of a few decades kids’ interactions with nature have been reduced significantly compared with all of human history,” says Richard Louv, author of Last Child in the Woods. “A new body of evidence suggests getting kids out-
side, which engages all the senses, leads to a longer attention span, increases in cognitive development, and [reduces] stress.”

So unless you want your child to grow up playing in a parking lot, the best way to avoid deer ticks is prevention. “You can’t really prevent ticks from being in outdoor areas, but you can be proactive about your own actions,” says Beth Herr, pro-
gram director at New York’s Westchester County Parks Department. (New York had more cases of Lyme disease in 2006 than any other state.) “Be sure that you tuck your pants into your socks, wear light-colored clothing, and check yourself and your child for ticks right after using outdoor facilities.”
Back to Top

I’m considering buying a tankless water heater. With all their great energy-saving features, why haven’t these systems caught on?
—Louis Weiss, Berkeley, CA

Whoever invented the storage water heaters most of us have in our homes today must have been thinking of how best to waste energy instead of save it. Think about it: Conventional systems keep water warmed to skin-scrubbing temps 24/7 even though hot water is needed for only an hour or two a day. Tankless (or demand) types do just the opposite: Water is heated instantly when you turn on the shower. Since roughly 13 percent of a home’s energy is used for this purpose, making the switch to a tankless kind could save an average of about $180 a year, and also help reduce your family’s carbon footprint.

If you choose a natural gas–burning model, it will use about 30 percent less energy than an electric one, and you can up the efficiency even more by picking a unit with an intermittent ignition rather than a constantly burning pilot light. (Two companies that sell such models are Bosch and Takagi.)

You will also save water. “You don’t need to run the shower waiting for the hot water, which wastes an average of five gallons every time you do it,” says Claudia Chandler, assis-
tant executive director for the California Energy Commission.

So why haven’t these caught on? Tankless heaters supply two to five gallons of water a minute, which might not be enough when you want to take a shower and run the dishwasher at the same time. A simple solution is to just add another unit. You will never run out of water completely, as with other heaters. While a tankless unit might be more expensive up front, you will save so much on your electricity bill it could pay for itself in as little as two years. You might also enjoy a windfall come April 15. The federal government and many states (see Energy Star and DSIRE) now offer rebates and tax deductions for energy-efficient appliances, including a $300 credit for certain tankless water heaters installed between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007.
Back to Top

I might start heating my home with wood pellets. Is this a sustainable resource?
—Jon Bradford, Lancaster, PA

What could be cozier than the smell of wood smoke drifting over a snowy landscape? Until the early 1900s, 90 percent of Americans heated their homes with wooden logs, which are a renewable resource, since trees can be planted to replace those cut for fuel. When fossil fuels became cheaper and more widely available, many people switched from the messy fires that needed constant stoking to furnaces that burned oil or natural gas (which are both finite, nonrenewable fuels).

Concerns about global warming, rising fuel prices, and ground-level air pollution have led some homeowners to rethink how they heat their homes, and wood is slowly making a comeback. Unfortunately, traditional wood stoves and fireplaces contribute to local air pollution, since they produce particulates (few older stoves have an air smoke filter), and they can be high maintenance to keep going. Stoves that run on pellets instead of logs are cleaner and require less upkeep (picture a bag of half-inch-long pellets instead of logs).

The fuel for these stoves is also sustainable, as most pellets are made of compacted sawdust, waste paper, and bark, all by-products of the paper, agriculture, or lumber industries. Sawdust wood pellets produce the least amount of ash. Some stoves can also burn other biofuels, including soybeans, corn kernels, nutshells, barley, and cherry pits, that might otherwise end up in landfills. But make sure your stove can handle alternative fuels before trying them.

You might also have an energy auditor or certified provider come check out your house to see what size stove you need based on the area you want to heat and how well it is insu-
lated. Most pellet stoves do need to be plugged in to run their fans and controls; you can expect to use about $9 worth of electricity per month. Setup for a pellet stove is faster than for a wood stove, and about half the price. Although a pellet stove costs considerably more than a wood stove ($1,700 to $3,000 compared with $400 to $700), the pellet stove could pay for itself in as little as four years.

From my column “Green Guru” at Audubon Magazine.

agriculture, alternative fuel, Animals, cape, car, carbon, carbon footprint, cars, children, clothing, corn, design, eating, Eco-Chick, electric, electricity, Energy, epa, fall, filter, fur, gas, Global Warming, Home, kids, local, magazine, model, models, oil, paper, playgrounds, Pollution, produce, reduce, skin, soy, spa, sustainable, Tea, trees, urban, waste, water, Wildlife, wood

Bring the Trees Back to Armenia!

4 Comments

by Starre Vartan · 10/15/07

Two different regions in Armenia, Shikahogh Reserve, which is now protected thanks to the work of the Armenian Tree Project and other groups (L) and the Gabion (L).

I’ve been a big fan of the Armenia Tree Project (ATP) since I first wrote about them for E Magazine a couple of years ago, and it’s not just because I’m 1/4 Armenian. The truth is, like most mixed-ethnicity (I’m also English, Lebanese, German and Scottish, whew!) Americans decended from immigrants I don’t feel particularly attached to any one country. I’ve certainly never been to Armenia and know little of the culture there. But reforesting a country that has had it’s forests decimated by people just trying to keep warm is not only important for the people that live there, but also in the fight against global warming and to improve air quality worldwide.

This map shows the deforestation in Armenia; the dark green is where forests exist now, the light green is where they were historically.

Over 70% of Armenia’s trees are gone (trees used to cover 25% of the land there, now they cover less than 8%) leading to erosion, landslides, flooding, loss of wildlife habitat, and degraded farmland. Trees were, and still are being cut down to heat homes. So importantly, not only does the ATP plant new trees but they also educate people (especially young people) to care for their local ecosystem, and the group is also working to find alternative fuels to help people keep warm without resorting to chopping down trees.

Gratuitous cute Armenian girl with apricots. Love her hat!

A little background….

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Armenia sought its full independence in a war with Azerbaijan. From 1991 to 1994 economic blockades prevented heating oil from coming into the country. “That resulted in massive burning of wood, from furniture to books to trees in forests and parks,” explains Jeff Masarjian, executive director of the nonprofit Armenia Tree Project, founded in 1994. “With little if any insulation in houses, and no alternative sources of fuel for heat and cooking, the people had little choice. Poverty is the greatest enemy of the forest.”

Although heating oil is now available, deforestation remains an ongoing problem because firewood is often the more affordable choice. “If the deforestation isn’t reversed immediately, the World Bank estimates that all the forest could be gone in 20 to 50 years,” says Masarjian. “Eighty percent of Armenia could turn to desert.”

So, if you know someone with deep pockets, or you have a bit of change floating around in yours, consider giving to the Armenia Tree Project. Right now a guy named Harry Mangurian is matching all donations to the group, so whatever you donate will be automatically doubled. With the money 33,000 new trees will be planted, which not only improved the environment, but gives needed money to low-income Armenians. Instead of being under such economic duress that they log trees illegally, folks will be paid to plant trees instead. A win-win!

For reference in case you don’t know where Armenia is…I always forget!
Armenia is a mountainous country located between Turkey and Azerbaijan, above Iran and below Georgia.

alternative fuel, book, books, car, deforestation, donations, eating, farm, flooding, fur, Furniture, giving, Global Warming, habitat, Home, local, magazine, media, oil, poverty, reference, Tea, trees, Wildlife, wood, World Bank

Green+Woman=Wussy; Green+Man=Technology?

13 Comments

by Starre Vartan · 08/07/07

I’m not the only one who’s noticed that men are taking over the environmental discussion. An eco-event in Bryant Park in New York City tomorrow is just one example that recently crossed my desk. There will be five speakers and not one woman! If there was a panel of five women, and no men, would people see it as a ‘woman’s event’? I think so. So why does this get to be an eco-discussion and not a men’s roundtable on the environment?

A great piece over at Grist questions whether the ‘new’ environmentalism isn’t just all about making ‘green’ more appealing to men, since women are already on the bandwagon, and most importantly, what that means for how we make changes in the future.

“[Thomas Friedman] wrote that America should redefine green to make it more “muscular” and transform its characterization by opponents as “sissy,” “girlie-man,” and “vaguely French.” Elsewhere, he has summed it up this way: “Green isn’t some ‘wussy’ tree-hugging thing. Green is patriotic. Green is strategic. Green is the new red, white, and blue.” Wussy being derogatory slang for “especially unmanly,” consider Friedman’s view to be the opposite. Call it “manly green.”

Do we need ‘manly green’ to keep environmental discussions on the table as a serious issue? Why are women’s issues (typically thought of as healthcare, reproductive rights, education, the environment) always pigeon-holed as such? I mean, doesn’t everyone go to school, get sick, decide to have kids or not, and breathe air and drink water? Why are these issues feminized? And relegated to second-class status because of it?

Surveys — from sources including the Yale School of Forestry, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Institute for Women’s Policy Research, and American National Election Studies — consistently show that women feel a stronger connection to the environment than men do:

-Women are up to 15 percent more likely than men to rate the environment a high priority.
-Women comprise up to two-thirds of voters who cast their ballots around environmental issues.
-Women are more likely than men to volunteer for and give money to environmental causes, especially related to public health.
-Women report both more support for environmental activists and more concern that government isn’t doing enough.
-Women support increased government spending for the environment, while men favor spending cuts.

Polls also show that about 68 percent of American consumers have gone green, preferring health-conscious and environmentally responsible products. Since 90 percent of women identify themselves as the primary shoppers for their households, and women sign 80 percent of all personal checks, it’s safe to say that women are leading a quiet revolution in green consumerism.

These trends suggest more than simply stronger support for the environment — they reveal a completely different attitude about it. Prevailing masculine views see environmentalism in terms of energy independence, as a political or military tactic. In the speech quoted above, President Bush pointed to alternative fuels such as hydrogen as a way for America to wean itself off foreign oil. A few years earlier, the CIA called the environment “the national-security issue of the early 21st century” and “the core foreign-policy challenge from which most others will ultimately emanate.”

If making the environment more of a manly issue means relying on technology, how does that impact what decisions are made and what to focus on? Instead of relying on innovation to solve our problems, what about the more prosaic ideas of cutting down on consumption, recycling, and conservation? Are those too girly? Not exciting enough? I think this argument takes a lot of liberties about what is ‘male’ and what is ‘female’; the writers are making pretty huge generalizations here. I think in the end, whether and idea is ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ is irrelevant, but I hate to see one sex dominating the discussion and having a bigger voice on any subject as important as the future of the environmental movement.

alternative fuel, Bush, car, conservation, consumerism, consumption, Energy, Events, farm, health, kids, military, New York City, oil, Recycling, soap, Tea, Technology, Vote, water, women, women's