Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal.

Each stage in the life cycle of coal-extraction, transport, processing, and combustion-generates a waste stream and carries multiple hazards for health and the environment. These costs are external to the coal industry and are thus often considered "externalities." We estimate that the life cycle effects of coal and the waste stream generated are costing the U.S. public a third to over one-half of a trillion dollars annually. Many of these so-called externalities are, moreover, cumulative. Accounting for the damages conservatively doubles to triples the price of electricity from coal per kWh generated, making wind, solar, and other forms of nonfossil fuel power generation, along with investments in efficiency and electricity conservation methods, economically competitive. We focus on Appalachia, though coal is mined in other regions of the United States and is burned throughout the world.

Mixing ventilation can reduce energy costs

The article provides information on a study on the potential of mixing ventilation in reducing energy costs in buildings such as theaters and schools. The study found that neither Manchester’s Contact Theatre and the Garrick Theatre in Lichfield in England is operating according to the displacement-ventilation principle upon which they were designed. Hybrid mixing ventilation has an important impact on both the ventilation rate and the thermal comfort of the theatres.

Comparing the sustainability of an innovative dry sanitation (Ecosan) system in China to a conventional waterborne sanitation system

The use of sustainability indicators for evaluating sanitation systems is applied to the Erdos Eco- Town Project (EETP) in China for illustration. The EETP is the largest urban settlement in the world employing ecological sanitation, which incorporates separation of waste streams, dry toilets, and resource recovery. The EETP’s dry sanitation system is compared against the Dongsheng District’s conventional sewer and centralised STP. The two systems are compared based on technological, environmental, economic, and societal indicators. Overall, the two systems perform reasonably well from a technological perspective. The conventional system performs significantly better than the dry system with regards to land and energy requirements, and global warming potential; it also performs better based on freshwater aquatic and terrestrial ecotoxicity potentials, but by a smaller margin. The dry system has superior environmental performance based on water consumption, eutrophication potential, and nutrient and organic matter recovery. The dry system is a more costly system as it requires greater infrastructure and higher operational costs, and does not benefit from economies of scale. The waterborne system performs better based on the societal indicators largely because it is a well-established system.