"I see so many labels for different types of food, and so many suspect companies using them, that I don't know what to pick. Which of these matter, and how can I tell if I'm getting something of value?"
- Camille from Brooklyn, NY
As one of the three essentials of life, food represents the biggest challenge because we have so many options, and so much marketing and advertising trying to sway our choices, that it can seem daunting to make the right decision. I review some of the main labeling below, but more importantly, you and your family should take some time and talk about the importance of food, the ways in which we produce food, and the different needs food meets in our lives. Then, you should identify some priorities to help guide your purchasing decisions. Although not an inclusive list, some of these might include: taste, cost, ease of preparation, use of chemicals, availability, or socially just food. Setting some priorities will help you sift through the morass of labeling and make the best decision for your family.
The following list notes some of the most common food labels related to environmental attributes:
Organic - The most common and contested of the group of labels refers to the method of crop growth.
According to the US Department of Agriculture, food grown organically "has been produced through approved methods. These methods integrate cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering may not be used." The USDA manages the review of products grown organically, and as you can imagine with any regulation program, groups on both sides of the issue have their concerns. Growers and retailers (especially Wal-Mart after making some commitments to organic produce) want the requirements as open as possible while consumer and environmental advocates want more stringent guidelines. Foods grown organically carry higher price tags most of the time for several reasons: 1. The demand for them is largely among more affluent people so retailers can charge more, 2. The USDA certification requirements add cost, 3. The market is smaller. Interestingly enough, if all US farmers grew crops organically, requiring no special certification, no cost difference would exist. As an interesting case, look to Cuba's transition in the 1990s to a mostly-organic farm economy because of the embargo.
Bottom line: Because of food industry influence, it is tough to police. Your best bet is to become familiar with the additives in food and the growing practices associated with the ingredients in each product you normally purchase. I know this is time consuming, but given our habitual purchasing practices, you should not have to do it very often.
Local - The most ambiguous of the labels refers to the distance traveled by the crop from farm to customer.
No set standard exists for defining food as local. For some it can mean grown within their state, within a certain radius of miles, or even by a specific type of grower (independent vs. corporate farm). The USDA has done some more exhaustive research, and there are ardent critics of an entirely local food movement, but supporters point toward lower energy and emissions due to less transportation, better transparency of growing practices, and stronger local economies as reasons to support local farmers.
Bottom line: I personally am not about to give up my bananas, so as with anything, this requires some moderation. Look at your family priorities, and source as much as you can within your local area. Go to your community farmer's market, purchase some of your produce from a CSA, and make informed choices. For almost all of us, a completely local diet is impossible, but supporting local farms has benefits beyond our dinner table.
Fair Trade - The least impactive label on the quality of the food tries to express the social justice associated with the growing and production of a product.
Fair trade labeling gained most of its fame from coffee and cocoa production, where for years activists have claimed that corporate influences have decreased the quality of life for the growers and processors of the crops. According to Fair Trade USA, a non-profit that certifies products, fair trade means that each point in the supply chain has "farmers and workers who are justly compensated". Although that sounds a bit nebulous, FLO-CERT, an independent organization established to develop and maintain standards, has produced an ISO-certified process for determining a product's compliance with fair trade standards.
Bottom line: It will not tell you anything about the quality or environmental impact of your menu, but our society should have moved well beyond the point where we should accept exploitation just to save a few bucks on dinner. If you buy a product that does not meet fair trade standards, ask the company why they do not....then judge them by the answer or the lack of response.
ANDI: Aggregate Nutrient Density Index - The least well known and possibly most important label provides guidance on the actual value of the food you purchase.
I often like to start discussions about food and environmentalism with the following rhetorical question: "I can purchase a soup and sandwich at Whole Foods (a notoriously expensive grocery chain for organic, local and environmentally benign products) for about $13. For that same amount of money, I can buy almost 20 packages of Hostess treats. I get so many more calories per dollar from the Hostess treats, and could easily meet my family's daily caloric intake for almost no cost. Why wouldn't I do that?" Although the answer is obvious, the quantification of food value remains elusive. Whole Foods (and other retailers) have tried to start answering this question by giving consumers (hopefully) unbiased indicators of the value of food to their well being. ANDI provides just such a measure "by evaluating an extensive range of micronutrients, including vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals and antioxidant capacities".
Bottom line: Probably the best potential guidance for the consumer, ANDI and similar systems have yet to become part of the standard lexicon...like say MPG has for car fuel efficiency or Better Housekeeping for household products. It is well worth the time to review ANDI and become familiar with its application.
Overall bottom line: Each of these labels helps draw attention to what goes into your food, where it was grown, how it was produced, where it comes from, and who handled it at every step of the way. Educate yourself and make informed decisions. Do not buy a product with an ingredient you do not know, and do not buy a product from a company that does not provide living wages at each step of production. For years, we have made decisions based on "brand loyalty" (another form of labeling) assuming that companies performed this due diligence for us. Now that we have information systems that make the attributes of food production readily available to us, it is time we lower the veil and make the most informed decision that is in line with our family's priorities and values....regardless of what else is on the label.
Showing posts with label request. Show all posts
Showing posts with label request. Show all posts
Monday, July 9, 2012
Monday, June 25, 2012
Request Monday (06/25/12): Which way does the wind blow?
"At a recent meeting, I heard a politician say that he didn't want his city to buy electricity from wind energy because 'Wind energy creates just as many greenhouse gas emissions as coal'. This can't be true, can it?"
- Becky from Chicago
This is an odd, although not surprising question. Generating electricity from wind energy has several questions that communities have to answer, mostly those communities where the wind turbines produce the electricity. Low level noise from the rotating turbines can disturb neighboring residences, turning blades can cause issues with migrating birds, and installing the turbines in the middle of farmland (although a great financial benefit to farmers) can cause disruption with new roads and infrastructure to build and maintain the turbines.
The claim made by the politician stems from one of two additional issues, or perceived issues depending on your point of view: the need for reserve energy should the wind stop blowing, and the lifetime energy intensity of building, operating, and decommissioning the turbines. I will deal with the latter question first.
According to a 1990 study by the Solar Energy Research Institute, an at-the-time, state-of-the-art coal power plant generated 1,041 metric tons of CO2 per GWhe (giga-watt hours of electricity generated), mostly coming from the burning of the fossil fuel (96.8%), with the remainder coming from ongoing operation and maintenance (2.7%) and initial construction (0.5%). As a comparison, a natural gas turbine electricity generating plant, according to a 2000 report by the Energy Center of Wisconsin, has a lifetime CO2 emissions of 464 metric tons per GWhe. In 2009, an Australian research team looking to improve upon previous studies that underestimated the embodied energy (and therefore emissions) associated with constructing wind turbines, calculated that the life cycle emissions for a wind turbine fell in the range of about 8-10 metric tons per GWhe. Admittedly, the study did not focus on quantifying the decommissioning of the plant for the case of the study, but even at a level equivalent to construction, wind power appears to reduce electricity-related CO2 emissions by 98% relative to late 20th century technology for electricity generation from coal and by 95.5% relative to modern natural gas generation.
Since the embodied energy theory does not make sense, that leaves the case of reserves.
This will require a (hopefully) straightforward analogy to explain the difference between the two types of reserves: spinning and non-spinning reserves. As the name implies, spinning reserves are already in motion, ready to go, and non-spinning reserves stay dormant until called into action. Like any machine, a generator producing electricity has a level at which it likes to run to efficiently produce electricity. Above or below that level, the unit still works, but produces less energy output per level of input. Also, when starting a generator "cold", it takes significantly more energy to get running than during normal operation.
Since the human body acts as a machine as well, the best analogy I can come up with relates electricity generation to a relay team. Each team member contributes to the overall goal of completing the distance in the best time possible. Consider electricity generated by coal, nuclear, natural gas, and wind as the four relay team members. Nuclear has strong efficiencies, but must get going as soon as it has warmed up and must run at a constant rate...a good lead runner. Coal should run next, as its plants also run large and requires a relatively constant load. Wind runs in the third leg of the relay, and when running at peak form, it generates a significant amount of electricity very efficiently and puts the team in great position to finish. Currently, natural gas runs as the anchor because it can get up to speed quickly and increase speed if necessary to bring the team to the finish line.
The problem with wind comes from variability...it does not always produce as forecasted, and on some rare days, does not show up at all. Reserves, in the electricity generation realm, help to cover for this in one of two ways. Spinning reserves increase the output of other generation already online. In the analogy, this takes the form of other runners running faster (and less efficiently) to make up for a dip in wind's contribution. Non-spinning reserves act like a substitute runner who takes wind's place in the event at the last minute. They do not get optimal time to warmup, and cannot perform at their best, but fill in as best they can.
A 2011 study by a team of researchers from Argonne National Labs, the University of Illinois and the Georgia Institute of Technology looked at the implication to emissions reduction from the need for fossil-fuel-based generation to be brought on during times when wind forecasts failed to meet expectations. They found two interesting results. First, the amount of "base load" wind (meaning the amount of possible wind generation available as a percentage of total generation) heavily influenced the type of reserves available, and therefore, the total emissions. When new wind generation reached a high level of base load, it allowed nuclear plants (which normally run full out) to act as spinning reserve and enabled more natural gas plants to transition to non-spinning reserve. Under lower levels of wind base load (or none at all), nuclear and natural gas run at capacity leaving inefficient coal plants to provide most of the spinning and non-spinning reserves. In the relay race, under the low base-load scenario, the variability of wind gets covered by the coal leg running faster but less efficient, and if wind cannot run at all, it gets replaced by a less efficient coal runner, reducing the overall efficiency of the team. When wind has a larger base load, the nuclear and natural gas team members have more capacity to cover for wind, thus enabling better overall team performance, even when wind cannot perform. The second observation answers the question fully: under every possible scenario, the presence of wind generation reduced the overall emissions of the electricity generation relative to a "no wind" baseline.
Every new technology displaces an established way of life or business practice. Those that profit from the status quo will always find reason to question the validity of the new technology's supposed performance. This skepticism provides a healthy check against getting "ripped off" by new ideas that do not really deliver. In this case, relative to carbon emissions, the new technology completely betters the old. Additionally, as wind generation increases penetration, we will find more efficient ways to handle the variability, and will reduce the risk of variability through the citing of generation facilities in a wider area of service. As the grid becomes "smarter", this area of service can expand to include large areas of the country, thereby decreasing the risk further.
Thanks for the question.
Enjoy the journey!
- Becky from Chicago
This is an odd, although not surprising question. Generating electricity from wind energy has several questions that communities have to answer, mostly those communities where the wind turbines produce the electricity. Low level noise from the rotating turbines can disturb neighboring residences, turning blades can cause issues with migrating birds, and installing the turbines in the middle of farmland (although a great financial benefit to farmers) can cause disruption with new roads and infrastructure to build and maintain the turbines.
The claim made by the politician stems from one of two additional issues, or perceived issues depending on your point of view: the need for reserve energy should the wind stop blowing, and the lifetime energy intensity of building, operating, and decommissioning the turbines. I will deal with the latter question first.
According to a 1990 study by the Solar Energy Research Institute, an at-the-time, state-of-the-art coal power plant generated 1,041 metric tons of CO2 per GWhe (giga-watt hours of electricity generated), mostly coming from the burning of the fossil fuel (96.8%), with the remainder coming from ongoing operation and maintenance (2.7%) and initial construction (0.5%). As a comparison, a natural gas turbine electricity generating plant, according to a 2000 report by the Energy Center of Wisconsin, has a lifetime CO2 emissions of 464 metric tons per GWhe. In 2009, an Australian research team looking to improve upon previous studies that underestimated the embodied energy (and therefore emissions) associated with constructing wind turbines, calculated that the life cycle emissions for a wind turbine fell in the range of about 8-10 metric tons per GWhe. Admittedly, the study did not focus on quantifying the decommissioning of the plant for the case of the study, but even at a level equivalent to construction, wind power appears to reduce electricity-related CO2 emissions by 98% relative to late 20th century technology for electricity generation from coal and by 95.5% relative to modern natural gas generation.
Since the embodied energy theory does not make sense, that leaves the case of reserves.
This will require a (hopefully) straightforward analogy to explain the difference between the two types of reserves: spinning and non-spinning reserves. As the name implies, spinning reserves are already in motion, ready to go, and non-spinning reserves stay dormant until called into action. Like any machine, a generator producing electricity has a level at which it likes to run to efficiently produce electricity. Above or below that level, the unit still works, but produces less energy output per level of input. Also, when starting a generator "cold", it takes significantly more energy to get running than during normal operation.
Since the human body acts as a machine as well, the best analogy I can come up with relates electricity generation to a relay team. Each team member contributes to the overall goal of completing the distance in the best time possible. Consider electricity generated by coal, nuclear, natural gas, and wind as the four relay team members. Nuclear has strong efficiencies, but must get going as soon as it has warmed up and must run at a constant rate...a good lead runner. Coal should run next, as its plants also run large and requires a relatively constant load. Wind runs in the third leg of the relay, and when running at peak form, it generates a significant amount of electricity very efficiently and puts the team in great position to finish. Currently, natural gas runs as the anchor because it can get up to speed quickly and increase speed if necessary to bring the team to the finish line.
The problem with wind comes from variability...it does not always produce as forecasted, and on some rare days, does not show up at all. Reserves, in the electricity generation realm, help to cover for this in one of two ways. Spinning reserves increase the output of other generation already online. In the analogy, this takes the form of other runners running faster (and less efficiently) to make up for a dip in wind's contribution. Non-spinning reserves act like a substitute runner who takes wind's place in the event at the last minute. They do not get optimal time to warmup, and cannot perform at their best, but fill in as best they can.
A 2011 study by a team of researchers from Argonne National Labs, the University of Illinois and the Georgia Institute of Technology looked at the implication to emissions reduction from the need for fossil-fuel-based generation to be brought on during times when wind forecasts failed to meet expectations. They found two interesting results. First, the amount of "base load" wind (meaning the amount of possible wind generation available as a percentage of total generation) heavily influenced the type of reserves available, and therefore, the total emissions. When new wind generation reached a high level of base load, it allowed nuclear plants (which normally run full out) to act as spinning reserve and enabled more natural gas plants to transition to non-spinning reserve. Under lower levels of wind base load (or none at all), nuclear and natural gas run at capacity leaving inefficient coal plants to provide most of the spinning and non-spinning reserves. In the relay race, under the low base-load scenario, the variability of wind gets covered by the coal leg running faster but less efficient, and if wind cannot run at all, it gets replaced by a less efficient coal runner, reducing the overall efficiency of the team. When wind has a larger base load, the nuclear and natural gas team members have more capacity to cover for wind, thus enabling better overall team performance, even when wind cannot perform. The second observation answers the question fully: under every possible scenario, the presence of wind generation reduced the overall emissions of the electricity generation relative to a "no wind" baseline.
Every new technology displaces an established way of life or business practice. Those that profit from the status quo will always find reason to question the validity of the new technology's supposed performance. This skepticism provides a healthy check against getting "ripped off" by new ideas that do not really deliver. In this case, relative to carbon emissions, the new technology completely betters the old. Additionally, as wind generation increases penetration, we will find more efficient ways to handle the variability, and will reduce the risk of variability through the citing of generation facilities in a wider area of service. As the grid becomes "smarter", this area of service can expand to include large areas of the country, thereby decreasing the risk further.
Thanks for the question.
Enjoy the journey!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)