Dry cleaning chemical perchloroethylene (perc), while good at removing stains, is a serious health risk, especially for those working directly with it. It has also infiltrated soils and groundwater over the years in areas near dry cleaning facilities. The concern over this chemical has prompted California to ban the use of perc by 2023, and sent many searching for alternative methods to dry cleaning.

There are alternatives out there. Wet cleaning technology was introduced in the mid 1990’s and doesn’t require any solvents. It is garment specific, and uses soap and water in “smart” washers and dryers to clean clothes, which are then finished, or pressed accordingly. Some garments are also handwashed depending on the fabric.

Other than wet cleaning there’s liquid carbon dioxide, which uses captured CO2 in the cleaning process and is a lot less toxic than conventional dry cleaning. A Consumer Reports comparison found the CO2 cleaning method achieved better results than wet cleaning or conventional dry cleaning.

However, when taking something to a professional cleaner, always ask if you’re unsure if their method is safe for your garment. And while there are an increasing number of green cleaners popping up, they aren’t available everywhere just yet.

You can avoid the cleaners altogether and hand wash your garments at home. While the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s Care Labeling Rule insists that ‘”Dryclean Only’ is a warning that the garment cannot be washed,” depending on the fabric, you can wash some garments labeled as such. The FTC’s Care Labeling Rule also says that clothing only has to carry a washing instruction or drycleaning instruction - even if both are acceptable for that garment.

When washing garments home, hand wash using a mild detergent and cold water. Don’t wring or twist the fabric and lay it flat to dry. Keep in mind that not all “dry clean only” garments can be washed. If you’re unsure if it’s best to take it to a cleaner.

Amy says: I’m still waiting for a green cleaner to pop up in my neighborhood…

For more on garment labeling and tips for washing at home:
Federal Trade Commission - Care Labeling Rule

Care 2 living - Wet Clean Wool Silk and Rayon

The Dollar Stretcher - Save Money on Dry Cleaning

For more on dry cleaners and the alternatives:
National Geographic - The Green Guide

Green Options: California Bans Toxic Dry Cleaning Chemical

Children’s Health Environmental Coalition

TreeHugger

Have a tip to share? Send it to us today.

Image source: ENS

The campaign against 11 proposed dirty coal-fired power plants in Texas ended with the announcement of the buyout of utility giant TXU and a deal with environmental groups.Two private equity firms, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Company and Texas Pacific Group, will purchase TXU for $32 billion. Part of the deal included scrapping the plans for 8 plants, and increased efforts toward emission reductions.

TXU’s stock had been dropping steadily since the grassroots effort to stop the proposed power plants, led by Environmental Defense and backed by governments, politicians and citizens statewide and across the nation. The opposition has been going strong since utility giant TXU announced their grand coal plans last April.

One could argue the turning point came just a few weeks ago when Environmental Defense began running television ads in Texas markets calling out TXU for their 11 plant proposal.

The ad is reminicent of negative campaign ads that run during political season. It gets straight to the point, making claims against TXU for raising prices to increase profit margins and lays out the potential polluting effects that the proposed 11 dirty coal plants will have. The screen is filled with smoke stacks spewing dirty pollution. The call to action is clear: Stop TXU from building more plants.

The ads worked and elicited a response from TXU to Environmental Defense. They took issue with nearly every statement against TXU in the ad, and responded accordingly. In the letter TXU accused Environmental Defense as spreading information that was misleading, and requested that the ads be removed.

Environmental Defense wrote back and said they would not stop running their ads and that all the claims they made in the ad against TXU were consistent with statements they’ve made publicly for months.

Fast forward ten days later. Feb 26. Environmental Defense has declared a victory in the TXU campaign with the announcement of the TXU buyout. Along with the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Goldman Sachs, Environmental Defense worked out an agreement with the private equity firms.

In addition to withdrawing permit applications for eight proposed coal plants, Texas Pacific Group and KKR have agreed to:

• Terminate TXU’s previous plans to expand coal operations in other states
• Endorse the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (US CAP) platform, including the call for a mandatory federal cap on carbon emissions
• Reduce the company’s carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020
• Promote Demand-Side Management programs to reduce energy consumption
• Double the company’s expenditures on energy efficiency measures
• Double the company’s purchase of wind power
• Honor TXU’s agreement to reduce criteria pollutants in Texas by 20% (TXU’s 20% pledge was contingent upon approval of all 11 plants)
• Establish a Sustainable Energy Advisory Board, on which Environmental Defense regional director Jim Marston will serve

However, not everyone is celebrating the news. A Dallas Morning News article points out that the fight is long from over.

[The buyout] doesn’t resolve the fundamental environmental problems that made the huge fleet of proposed coal plants so controversial across the state and the nation. Solving those would require a longer effort to make basic changes in how Texas deals with energy and the environment.

Texas will still be the largest emitter of GHG, and the deal might make it harder to fight ongoing battles with existing plants and permits in other areas.

Local battles over the three remaining new TXU coal plants and five others that other companies still could build in Texas will continue as well. In particular, TXU’s proposed two-unit Oak Grove facility in Robertson County is the subject of a permit fight before the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

Oak Grove’s two units and a new unit at TXU’s Sandow plant in Milam County are the only ones the company proposed that would burn Texas lignite, the most-polluting form of coal. The others would have burned cleaner Wyoming coal. Opponents said they would continue to fight the Oak Grove permit. But Dallas Mayor Laura Miller, who is leading a coalition of cities against the new TXU plants, said the TXU deal could make it harder to defeat that plant.

As part of the deal, Environmental Defense agreed to drop the lawsuit over the proposed plant at Sandow.

An article in the Houston Chronicle cites skepticism that the deal will actually benefit consumers at all.

Overall, this deal is a win for environmental groups. It demonstrates the power of an effective grassroots campaign and that good things do come when groups like Environmental Defense and the NRDC are at the table in the decision making process.

However, the United States is still clearly lacking in federal emission mitigation policy, which should mandate the cleanest technologies available for new coal plants.

Further reading:
Environmental Defense Press Releases: Feb. 16. Feb. 26 (The letters between TXU and Environmental Defense are also available through those press releases.)
The New York Times
Houston Chronicle
Dallas Morning News

Watch the Environmental Defense ad here

Image from Popular SciencePlasma gasefication has the potential to turn garbage into energy. It sounds futuristic, but it is being done today.

The process can take everything from household waste to toxic chemicals and “poof” turn them into nothing. Literally. The by-products are an obsidian like glass, and synthesis gas (or syngas) that can be converted into fuels like natural gas or highly sought after hydrogen.

Plasma gasefication is promising since municipal waste and overflowing landfills are becoming larger problems worldwide. Plus the process doesn’t produce air-polluting emissions like incinerators, a common but controversial landfill alternative.

Popular Science magazine featured a plasma conversion facility in Bristol, Connecticut, headed up by Joseph Longo. Longo is founder and CEO of Startech Environmental Corporation (one of about a dozen companies involved in furthering this technology) who has pioneered waste solutions such as the conventional trash compactor. Now he’s moved on to what could be the next generation of waste disposal.

[Plasma gasification] works a little like the big bang, only backward (you get nothing from something). Inside a sealed vessel made of stainless steel and filled with a stable gas—either pure nitrogen or, as in this case, ordinary air—a 650-volt current passing between two electrodes rips electrons from the air, converting the gas into plasma. Current flows continuously through this newly formed plasma, creating a field of extremely intense energy very much like lightning. The radiant energy of the plasma arc is so powerful, it disintegrates trash into its constituent elements by tearing apart molecular bonds. The system is capable of breaking down pretty much anything except nuclear waste, the isotopes of which are indestructible.

Perhaps the most amazing part of the process is that it’s self-sustaining. Just like your toaster, Startech’s Plasma Converter draws its power from the electrical grid to get started. The initialvoltage is about equal to the zap from a police stun gun. But once the cycle is under way, the 2,200˚F syngas is fed into a cooling system, generating steam that drives turbines to produce electricity. About two thirds of the power is siphoned off to run the converter; the rest can be used on-site for heating or electricity, or sold back to the utility grid. “Even a blackout would not stop the operation of the facility,” Longo says.

Plasma gasefication does sound like a dream come true. What could be better than eliminating massive amounts of waste from the world? The Popular Science article cites critics who point out that there are heavy metals in the obsidian-like glass byproduct, which breaks down easily in water and could contaminate soils and ground water if not disposed of properly. Others doubt the cleanliness of the syngas, which would serverely limit its use.

I wondered about some other unintended effects to this potential “solution” to our increasing garbage load. Even if plasma gasefication is the next step in dealing with the world’s waste, garbage would still need to be hauled to plasma converter sites. While the facilities would be considerably smaller than landfills, and much easier to place in close proximity to waste generating areas, it wouldn’t necessarily change the way waste is picked up (often with polluting diesel powered trucks) but simply where it is taken to.

Another issue that concerns me is that people might recycle less than they already do. One motivator to recycling is knowing that you’re eliminating waste in landfills and you’re promoting post-consumer content in products such as paper, and the reuse of metals such as aluminum. However, if plasma gasefication is implemented on a mass scale, and people stop worrying about the amount of waste generated since that waste will essentially disappear, recycled materials might decrease, prompting the increase of new materials or virgin products (ie. cutting of new trees rather than using recycled paper for new paper products.)

Additionally, the phasing out of landfills (if we get to that point) would also require businesses who have built up their operations using methane gas from landfill sites to find alternate means of generating this fuel source.

Overall, plasma gasefication is a very appealing solution for our increasing global waste problems, and we’ll be keeping an eye on its progress.

Via Popular Science Magazine

Photo Credit: Dai Sugano/Mercury NewsAl Gore spoke in Silicon Valley on Friday, the same day as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fourth assessment was released. The report issued by the official scientist consortium concluded that global warming is happening, in large part due to human activity.

However, instead of touting the all too familiar gloom-and-doom global warming scenarios of the future, Gore’s message to Silicon Valley was hopeful. He sees the climate crisis as an opportunity for businesses, and sees green technology as the key to revitilizing Silicon Valley.

According to CNET’s review of Gore’s remarks:

The work already done in information technology, computational science, biotechnology and other specialties that are present in this valley, more than any other place in the world, are going to be the most valuable resources” to combat the crisis, he said. “Just as information technology changed the world, clean tech and green tech right here based in Silicon Valley…you can chart the course and save the future of this civilization.

A report released by the Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network does show that green and clean technologies are already helping the area economy demonstrated by the first significant job increase since the dot-com bust.

The report also found that venture capital funding awarded to clean technology firms increased 266 percent last year, with investments of about $300 million by the third quarter alone.

Via CNET
Watch CNET video of Gore’s talk to Silicon Valley.

Venture capitalists have been sinking a lot of cash into alternative energy and clean technology start-ups in the past few years. $727 million was invested in 2006 alone, which was up from $195 million in 2005.

However, these venture capitalists are finding that in order for their new alternative energy businesses to grow and thrive they’re going to need a little help from state and federal governments. This means trying to influence politicians - not an easy task considering they’re going up against big oil companies that have been heavily lobbying the government for years. In 2005, oil and gas company lobbyists spent $59 million, whereas venture capitalists spent $2 million.

The president’s State of the Union address called for an increase in domestic fuel production including ethanol and biodiesel, which is promising for those who have invested in the production of these fuels. And states across the US are increasingly making climate change and related issues priority item.

The increase in venture capital funds for alternative energy and clean technologies are also having a positive impact on job growth in silicon valley.

Venture capitalists are often entrepreneurial and typically invest in young companies, or assist in product development and with the intent of getting a high rate of return on their investment within three to seven years. Alternative energy investments include funding for companies in solar and wind technologies, and alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.

Via The New York Times

Further reading:
National Venture Capital Association

Cleantech Venture Network