text:
- Noel Laporte
- Eugene, OR
- United States
This conversation is closed.
What form of renewable energy has or will have the lowest impact on biodiversity?
Climate change, air pollution, rising sea levels and species extinction can all be attributed to the increasing usage of non-renewable energy in the world today. Non-renewable energy reserves are diminishing and finite with an ever-increasing demand from countries around the world. Coal, natural gas and oil all have detrimental effects on the environment. These effects are both local and global, harming species throughout the world. As we consider different renewable forms of energy, can we rank their potential impacts on biodiversity?
Apr 23 2013: Concentrating solar thermal plants could fulfill a significant chunk of our more immediate energy demands while other technologies progress. Most people associate solar with photovoltaic solar cells, but PV technology isn't quite there yet and it's incredibly expensive. Solar thermal systems on the other hand are much less expensive, more efficient, and because of their heat storage capabilities, are able to operate when there is no daylight.
Land and water are required for CSP systems and both of these can impact biodiversity, however, unlike PV cells, hazardous and rare materials aren't required for their manufacture. CSPs can be built in areas of lower diversity such as abandoned mining lands and transportation and transmission corridors. Different types of thermal technologies require different amounts of water for cooling but decreased water consumption is generally paired with decreases in efficiency. Furthermore, places that are best suited for solar technology are generally drier. The world's largest CSP is gearing up to come online and is located in the Mojave Desert. But this region's water supply is insecure as Lake Mead dwindles.
The carbon footprint for the entire life cycle of solar technologies, including manufacture, materials transport, maintenance, etc., is also far less when compared with that of natural gas and coal.
(1) http://www.technologyreview.com/news/512551/brightsource-pushes-ahead-on-another-massive-solar-thermal-plant/
(2) http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-solar-power.html
Apr 23 2013: Hi Chelsea! I am again returning to Stewart Brand's point here that solar power takes up about 50 square miles per GW. He quotes Saul Griffith that it would it take an area roughly the size of the United States to get 13 clean terawatts of energy from wind, solar and biofuels combined. Given what we have learned about extinction risks due to habitat loss, what do you think the tradeoffs of CSP systems versus nuclear energy? Do CSP systems take up less habitat than solar panels?
Apr 23 2013: Unfortunately, solar thermal takes up about twice as much land area as photovoltaics. It isn't ideal, but its a start and I think multiple approaches will have to be taken towards offsetting our reliance on fossil fuels. The plants can be set up on less desirable (already destroyed) land tracts as well.
Regarding nuclear, the waste is a serious concern. More disasters like Fukushima will undoubtedly occur because human negligence isn't going away any time soon. If we attempt to rely more heavily on nuclear during our transition away from oil, I don't see industry giving up on the plants they will have already built to switch to the greener technologies, it would affect their bottom lines .. we'll be up to our ears in radioactive waste.
Cori Brant
Apr 23 2013: I think an alternative to large solar thermal plants, which take up a significant amount of space, would be this new idea of "Artificial leafs". The idea is to literally preform photosynthesis. The artificial leaf is a small catalyst-coated wafer of silicon, this small wafer is dropped into a bucked of water which starts the reaction. The catalysts break down water into hydrogen and oxygen, and the bubbles are used to produce energy in fuel cells. One quart of water provides 100 watts of electricity for 24 hours a day. This process is unlike solar panels because it can run at night, by storing the hydrogen and oxygen. This of course has a few flaws but has a great start on using a resource that if used will provide a clean and manageable waste.
- +1
Apr 23 2013: This is amazing. Are there any peer-reviewed journal articles describing this technology?
I just logged in a second time to read the IET article but it is blocking me out now. Any idea why it is closed? I really want to learn more about this concept.
Apr 23 2013: http://pubs.acs.org.libproxy.uoregon.edu/doi/full/10.1021/ar2003013
Here's the article by Daniel Nocera that the IET article was talking about. I was able to access it through the UO Lib database. If you can't open it on that link, the link below has the abstract available without logging in.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ar2003013Apr 23 2013: I really am fascinated by this approach for a clean and new renewable energy source. I'm a firm believer in using the natural world as a stepping stone for technological innovation and design. Nature has been evolving the most efficient ways to perform a myriad of tasks since technically the birth of our earth. By trying to create a renewable energy system off of models such as photosynthesis we could step towards true clean renewable energy. I hope we can use models right in front of us such as plants to push towards a more natural source of renewable energy.
Jordan Grace
Apr 24 2013: It seems solar has been mentioned many time after this post on the above portion of the thread. From Chelsea's technology review article I was able to find another project dubbed Palen that is in the final steps of approval and is hoped to be built within the next year or two. http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/palen. While this article does not go into the specifics about impacts on the environment, the fact sheet mentions a variety of technological innovations, two of which are very interesting and would decrease environmental impacts of the technology. One, is that it uses 95% less water (supposedly) than the other Mojave plant by cooling it with air in a closed loop steam system that also recycles water. Second, it uses land efficiently by implementing taller towers on pilons which preserve plant life below by not using traditional grading techniques that require removal of plants. I think some of these improvement go to show that the energy technology with the best and most efficient implementation innovation with be the quickest to become more widespread. Many of these innovations are hard to predict.
- +1
Nicole Mehta
Apr 24 2013: I also agree with the idea of nuclear power as the next major source of energy. The terra power nuclear reactor as pointed out by noel above seems to be a promising idea. They propose a new type of reactor called the "travelling wave reactor". What i like the most about the idea is the emphasis put on the reactors impact to the environment. The website claims that 50 times more energy will be produced compared to the light water reactors of today. What i find interesting and do not quite understand is that they say that they will be using depleted uranium for power. Does anyone have a good explanation of how this could possibly be done? Probably the greatest concern for any nuclear reactor is the safety associated with it. The travelling wave reactor has incorporated safety ideas and protocols into their design that have accounted for all previous nuclear reactor accidents. What do people think about terra power? do you think it has some sort of viable future?
- +3
Apr 24 2013: I had never heard of terra power. I looked it up and it said that is uses a closed fuel system and is very efficient. It seems like it could be useful for a while but in the long run don't we want to stay away from depending on fuel?
Justin Allen
Apr 24 2013: I think the TWR model is a great idea! There is much concern about the build-up of depleted uranium from nuclear power plants and its potential effect on the environment as well as humans. The TWR provides a way for the DU to be put to use. I found a great simplified description on how the TWR utilizes this depleted uranium. "Think of it as a very slow burning bullet. At one end of the fuel assembly is the primer, in this case a small amount of enriched U-235. Packed like gunpowder in the rest of the 'cartridge' is depleted uranium. The primer ignites the DU immediately around it and this sets off a chain reaction that propagates forward through the fuel at a rate that would take anywhere from months to decades, possibly as much as a century." There have been estimates that suggest that there is enough depleted uranium stored around the planet to provide electric power for everyone for the next millennium! The downside of this model is that it still does produce a fair bit of waste, but its about 10% less than that produced by LWRs today. Also, the waste from the enriched U-235 primer for the reactor can theoretically be used up again in the reactor without any processing!
- +1
Keir Staple
Apr 24 2013: I am currently taking a course on the Hanford nuclear site, and have become very skeptical on our future with nuclear energy. Nuclear sites around the world, including Hanford, have proven that nuclear energy waste is difficult to manage and contain, often times leaking from their storage units after several decades. However, some microbiologists are looking at specific microbes (specifically Shewanella sp.) that can digest toxic metals and convert them into non-toxic ones. A friend of mine at Whitman College is currently taking a class from Sara Belchik who is doing research on specific strains of Shewanella that were isolated near Hanford and have the ability to reduce iron oxides and uranium. If the world can advance technology to prevent major accidents like the nuclear meltdown in Japan, and if we can learn more about microbes to potentially assist in breaking down the waste we produce, I believe nuclear power will provide the most energy without taking up a lot of habitat area and affecting biodiversity. These are most likely long-term goals, so in the meantime I would look to advances in solar energy to make a push in the renewable energy market.
- +3
Apr 24 2013: I really like this approach. Although waste leakage is a serious problem being able to identify microbes able to reduce this waste is paramount. There is this really good short video on Thorium reactors as an alternative to Nuclear fission.
LFTRs in 5 minutes - Thorium Reactors
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZYApr 24 2013: Now that the 'war' on renewables is over the two I am intrigued with the most are solar and magnetic. Solar due to the fact that technology is rapidly improving and getting stronger as apparent with the developers at Goal Zero. The other is not always thought of as alternative energy, however, after riding a magnetic train at 160mph and not one gas emission or vibration while running. Check out what Magna Drive in Seattle is doing to reduce our needs for oil consumption by using magnets in couplings in manufacturing plants.Apr 23 2013: With any form of renewable energy, we must take into consideration the environmental costs associated with producing/storing this energy. What I mean is, in order to produce things like wind turbines they need to be manufactured in a factory out of metal and fiberglass and the machines needed to make these products require a lot of energy. So even if the product itselff (i.e. wind turbines) reduces carbon emissions, the manufacturing process is quite energy expensive.
Let me give an example: the Prius (or any other electric car).
The concept of this car is wonderful; battery power replaces gasoline and even a self-recharging mechanism built into the braking system. Great gas mileage, low emissions. Sounds like a win-win right? Well, when we break down the manufacturing that went into this car we find it is not nearly as environmentally friendly as we like to think. First off, each Prius battery contains 32 pounds of nickel, and annually Toyota produces 1,000 tons of nickel. This nickel is first mined in Canada (where the surround area has been declared an environmental disaster site), then shipped to Europe, then to China and finally Japan during the refining process. The cars are manufactured in Japan and shipped by tanker to the US. This entire process uses vast quantities of fossil fuels and steel and plastics. Finally, that high tech battery cannot be recycled easily and biodegrades in landfills into extremely toxic chemicals. So, even though the car itself might reduce emissions, the process it takes to obtain the car is not at all ecofriendly and probably offsets any benefits it produces.
In a perfect world, all these processes would run on sustainable energy. I do not think it is likely that we will be able to have sustainable energy without using lots of fossil fuels to help provide energy that energy in some way, but maybe others have different views?Apr 23 2013: Hydropower, often associated with dams, is another common source of "green energy" with effects on biodiversity that are often overlooked. The construction of dams often includes the straightening of the river channel to optimize the amount of energy harnessed by the dam, which reduces and eliminates smaller streams that provide necessary food and water sources to many organisms. Also, the implementation of dams usually results in flooding of the river's natural floodplain; this can cause local ecosystem changes as historically "drier" lands are replaced with wetlands. Dams affect many species both within and outside the river. Many species of fish, aquatic invertebrates, and microorganisms that live in the river are threatened due to the reduction of essential habitat. Other species that depend on the river ecosystem would also be negatively affected due to the possible reduction in food and water sources. The flooding caused by the implementation of dams, as well, displaces many animal and plant species.
One positive note with hydropower that is not true for other sources of clean energy (i.e. nuclear, wave energy, biofuels) is the fact that dams can be deconstructed and natural ecosystems can rebuild themselves over time through secondary succession. There is currently no known way to properly dispose of the wastes from nuclear fusion, energy harvested from waves could cause huge changes to relatively unknown ocean ecosystems, and biofuels involve the massive transition of natural ecosystems into monocultures.
Dams rely on natural physical processes, mainly magnetic and gravitational forces, to harness energy. The link below from the U.S.G.S describes how dams convert energy from rivers into usable electrical power.
Although the use of dams as an energy source is not a biologically sound method of obtaining energy in the long term, I think it could be a good source of energy until we can develop new energy sources.
Apr 23 2013: Hydro-power definitely has both pros and cons. Its a successful way to farm consistent energy from the environment but this farming only as a contributes a small percentage of energy to our grid. Habitat destruction by either flooding plains or trapping of water in one location may seriously impact biological ecosystems. Although this may be a good source for some renewable energy it does not seem to be promising for a primary renewable energy source.Apr 24 2013: I think with this, though, it is important to take into consideration the major issues that dams have already caused in terms of biodiversity. Especially in the Pacific Northwest of the US with the Bonneville dam, there has been some serious damage to salmon populations, as the dams impede the natural migration patterns of salmon up the Columbia river. While fish ladders do help to minimize this issue, there is no substitute for the fish's natural migration patterns. The drastic changes to the river downstream of the dams also have huge repercussions on wildlife. Lower water levels through off plant growth regions and that can have serious effects on the diversity within an area.
Yes, hydro-power causes far less pollution, generally causing some sedimentary disruption within the water supply and causing essentially zero atmospheric contamination, there are some serious drawbacks to damming up rivers.
Ben Story
Apr 22 2013: I think that nuclear power is a very viable option for minimizing the effect, of energy production, on biodiversity worldwide. In comparison, to standard sources of energy, nuclear energy produce, "...wastes (that) comprise less than 1% of total industrial toxic wastes." (*)
- +3
A recent study into the effect of renewable energy has revealed that nuclear power comes in third behind wind and hydroelectric power (**); in terms of its effect on climate change. Climate change being one of the most significant impacts on biodiversity. Although nuclear power does produce significant physical waste, it does not pose any threats to bird populations (as do wind turbines) nor does it threaten local fish and aquatic wildlife (as do dams producing hydroelectric power). In conclusion, in terms of threat to ecosystems worldwide I believe nuclear power to be the ultimate choice if our goal is to conserve global biodiversity.
I think that physical waste is the biggest threat to biological diversity and by reducing waste we can seriously diminish the human effect on ecosystems across the globe. Although, nuclear power instills fear in many people, it is actually one of the safest forms of energy; if safety regulations worldwide are sufficiently increased we can avoid incidents such as those experienced in Chernobyl and Fukushima.
(*) http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Radioactive-Waste-Management/#.UXWlhqLrywI
(**) Moomaw, W., P. Burgherr, G. Heath, M. Lenzen, J. Nyboer, A. Verbruggen, 2011: Annex II: Methodology. In IPCC: Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (ref. page 10)
Apr 22 2013: Hi Ben! I thought you might be interested in Nuclear Fusion ala Taylor Wilson http://www.ted.com/talks/taylor_wilson_yup_i_built_a_nuclear_fusion_reactor.html. Not a lot of detail here on the feasibility of using this to supply the world's energy needs.
Check out this debate between Stewart Brand (we discussed his de-extinction ideas) and Mark Jacobson http://www.ted.com/talks/debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy.html.
Apr 23 2013: fusion is not viable in the foreseeable future. in fact, it is not sure that it will ever be viable. in particular, the method wilson talks about is known to be unfeasible for energy production. the concept is well known for a long time, and you can actually buy commercial grade devices any time. it is used in laboratories all around the globe as a neutron source. some research has been conducted to make it into a power plant, but they were abandoned very early due to unresolvable practical problems.
Paige Walker
Apr 23 2013: One of the biggest issues is the storing of nuclear waste. Currently the Hanford Nuclear Site, which was used for weapons production during WWII, is begining to leak into the groundwater and then into the Columbia River due to inefficient and containment facilities that were only meant to funtion for 10 to 20 years. This is a huge threat to the organisms and the people who depend on the river for food and fresh water to irrigate millions of acres of agriculture. There is also the issue of the environmental degradation due to mining for uranium. The refining, enrichment, and production process produces radioactive isotopes that profoundly affect the entire ecosystem in which it is done.
- +1
We need to think even cleaner, i think.
Apr 23 2013: I agree with Paige. Nuclear power may help reduce CO2 emissions but we need to come up with an energy source that does not have the potential to cause problems in the future. Having nuclear waste leaking into environments and ecosystems can cause serious problems.
ben head
Apr 23 2013: I agree that we need cleaner energy sources than even nuclear, but i agree with Ben's original comment that nuclear seems to currently be by far our best option for power in the short term. As others have mentioned in this conversation, solar, biofuel, and wind power require huge tracts of land to get even a reasonable yield, and the processes involved in the production of turbines and the like are far from green. Additionally, utilizing waves (or wind, or even sunlight) as an energy source could very likely have unforseen consequences, as we do not know if/to what extent utilizing these resources could affect ocean or air currents or other large-scale systems.
- +1
Also, on the topic of hydroelectric power utilization, dams are obviously a massively disruptive barrier to any ecosystem, potentially harming biodiversity, but I really like Krista's earlier point that they could have some of the absolute lowest long-term costs. I hadn't before considered the fact that damage caused from dams can be naturally recovered without too much trouble once the dam is gone, and that is an important positive factor.
I reiterate, I certainly don't think nuclear fission is the end-all power source, but right now, trying to fix all these myriad anthropogenic problems with our planet while attempting to provide energy to humanity, it's triage, and decisions need to be made. The extraction and refining of nuclear fuels will likely continue to be an issue, but with waste, I feel like we should start using the moon- there's no biodiversity up there to mess up. Now, this almost sounds like a silly idea, but i feel like it's a good one- I assume the reason it's not done right now must be the prohibitive cost, but ideally, with technological advances, we should be able to put as much potentially biologically harmful waste up there as we want, in a cost-effective way.
The moon: earth's wastebasket. . . . someday?Apr 23 2013: Hi Ben! I can think of a number of reasons why it would be risky to put nuclear waste on the moon. What would happen to nuclear waste if something went wrong during transit between the Earth and the moon?
Mario R
Apr 23 2013: What happens when we colonize the moon too? We don't want to have to wade through nuclear waste. I think that in order to start working towards a long term solution, we have to change our current habits. For example, start turning off lights around the house that aren't being used! Try to take half the duration of shower each morning, or even better, shower every other day! Bundle in layers instead of turning on the heat. If we start reducing our usage of energy, the demand for energy won't be as great! I think that if we do start limiting our energy usage, we can reliably rely upon other methods of sustainable energy.
- +1
Also, another suggestion could be to replace lamps around the house with the stylish gravity powered lamp (not yet available retail)!
Todd Cee
Apr 23 2013: I like your suggestion to shower every other day, not only will it save energy in heating the water but it will be better for us in the long run. It's been scientifically proven that showering removes all the good bacteria from your skin and makes it so you get sick easy. That's why I never shower anymore, at my age I can't afford to get sick and miss times with my grand kids. :-)
- +3
-Todd C.Apr 23 2013: Hey Mario, really good point about changing our habits. The core issue here isn't what technology we use, its the fact that we consume too much! People look at improved and new technology as our answer, but I think we need to take a step back and reexamine our lifestyles. We don't need as much energy as we currently use.
ben head
Apr 23 2013: If we colonize the moon we could just go to the part with no nuclear waste... Not only do we not need the whole surface of the moon, the technology to completely colonize (as in, there's so many people there that we're actually running into a problem with nuclear waste being around) a lifeless sphere where half of it stays dark all the time is thousands of years away.
- +1
Transporting nuclear waste ever, in any capacity, is risky, i just think getting it out of the biosphere is the best thing to do. We're just as likely to screw up sequestering it somewhere on earth as we are to screw up transporting it to the moon, by my reckoning. Additionally, once it's on the moon we're home free, there's no life up there, and it's not going to spread since there's no wind or air on the moon. I feel like transporting risk and cost are the only downsides here, both of which continue to shrink as technology improves.
This is far from an ideal solution, but i feel like it's good for our situation now. More research into better, safer power sources is important. We need to step up our moon game though.Apr 23 2013: Individual action is not enough. We still have industry, we have wars, we have an expanding economy, and we have humanity. Turning off lights, taking half showers may be great for your pocket-book, but it makes a marginal impact on the amount of emissions from a coal-fire electric plant.
The question we must ask ourselves is not what can we do around the house, but what can we do together to change our energy consumption habits. Individual effort is great, however, mass collective action is crucial if we want a sustainable, carbon-neutral futureApr 24 2013: I've got to agree with the past comments in this string. I think that although solar, wind, wave, and nuclear are all technologies we have now, it's obvious from the TEDtalks and ongoing debates that current technology isn't exactly feasible yet to maintain (or increase) biodiversity AND continue to fuel our habits. I believe that by enacting small changes, such as the aforementioned energy friendly appliance standards, tighter CO2 emission regulation, tax credits, and other options that nearly every person could partake in is the way to go to begin to decrease CO2 emissions. This will not only decrease the amount of energy consumed per person, but allowing people to be included in on this movement may increase the interest in investing and exploring new technologies. I also agree that individual change isn't going to create a radical energy revolution (because not everyone is going to be willing to give up certain energy benefits), so what about recent proposals for energy could bring about these new technologies?
In Amory Lovins' TEDtalk called "The End of Oil", he proposes solving the United States' energy problem by "re-inventing fire". What he means by this is getting rid of those energy technologies that have negative side effects, such as CO2 emissions by coal and fossil fuel burning (for electricity and vehicles), in exchange for a combination of already invented "green" tech. Although this is not an immediate fix-all for maintaining biodiversity, and that surely was not the purpose of his presentation, he stresses that by breaking the new contributors for electricity and transportation into the subgroups of wind, solar, geothermal, hydro power it will allow for the speed in which new technologies are introduced to increase.
Amory Lovins' TEDtalk: http://www.ted.com/playlists/58/the_end_of_oil.htmlApr 24 2013: The immediate future needs the continued use of fossil fuels (natural gas while moving away from oil and coal). While the continued use of fossil fuels further exacerbates problems such as global warming, the danger of slowing down economic growth is too great. In the west, we have the luxury of being concerned about the environment due to the security we enjoy. However, as soon as a crisis arises, the argument always seems to come down to "jobs versus the environment". Extreme solutions that limit the growth our system is based upon have the potential for backlash in creating resentment towards clean energy and creating movements against it.
The environmental Kuznets curve predicts that as an economy becomes more developed, it will initially cause more damage to its environment and then, after a turning point, begin to do less. Currently, most developing countries are on the upward portion of the curve while western countries (with the "luxury of caring") are on the downward side. Allowing for continued growth in the developing world (while policing the externalization of western nation's pollution) is a key to protecting future biodiversity. (It sounds like a catch-22, but the truth of the matter is that we cannot prevent the developing world from developing so we should allow it to develop as smoothly as possible).
Robby Fung
Apr 23 2013: I agree. From what I've read so far there is a lot of support for nuclear energy, but as you mentioned, the reason why nuclear energy isn't super popular is because... well it's nuclear and the wastes it generates. The most popular method to dispose of nuclear waste is burying it in the ground essentially which is just all sorts of problems.
- +1
However, I remember a few years ago there was this giant idea about sending waste into the far reaches of space. What's your thoughts on that? I understand that space travel right now is expensive to the point where it's not cost efficient, but what about in the future when space travel is cheaper?
"There are three good reasons to send nuclear waste into space. First, it is safe. Second, space disposal is better than the alternative, underground burial. Third, it may finally open the door to widespread utilization of space. " (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/437/1)
Just to play devil advocate, if you think about it. Space is literally endless which can mean an endless amount of area to dispose of waste. Naturally as long as it's far enough away from out planet. At the same time... we have nuclear waste floating around in space.
ben head
Apr 23 2013: I like this idea but I feel like once we're at that tech level we should use lifeless planets or moons for disposal, to know where potentially harmful substances are, and just because generally anything could happen if you fling stuff out into space- we could anger our alien overlords, or accidentally destroy a pristine new earth-like planet, or who knows. Space is the place.
- 0
Mario R
Apr 23 2013: I am inclined to disagree with sending nuclear waste into space. As you said Ben, it is possible that our alien overlords would be angered to the point of invasion, however I think this is a temporary solution to an ongoing problem. Sending nuclear matter into space is expanding the problem. There are too many uncontrolled variables, such as nuclear matter ending up on earth like planets as you have mentioned. In that scenario, we have had an impact not only on the species on our own planet, but species on other planets as well. Or what if the nuclear matter were to react to the composition elements of other stars? Would that in turn be the end of a different solar system?Apr 24 2013: There is actually already a problem with man made debris pollution in space knocking satellites out of orbit, outlined in this article http://www.economist.com/node/16843825 so I'm not sure that sending any more waste, whether it is nuclear or not, is a good idea until we can figure out how to make sure satellites are secure.Apr 23 2013: no, it is not a huge threat. it is a very minor, almost insignificant threat. fukushima dumped quite a lot of radioactive waste into the ocean, and the wildlife is totally unaffected. chernobyl dumped a ginormous amount of radioactivity on the surrounding forests, killing all animals for a decade, but now the biosystem is "back on line". and these are tragedies of grand scale. a small leakage has virtually no effect on the environment.Apr 23 2013: I believe that Nuclear waste can and should only being stored until we figure out ways to break it down and possibly even use it as a secondary energy source. It's unrealistic to think that we can store mass volumes of substances this dangerous with any potentials contamination or environmental damage. Renewable energy services need to take into account safe and effective waste disposal services.
- +1
Apr 23 2013: it might sound unrealistic, but we already do that for decades now. as technology progresses, such a task gets easier and easier.Apr 23 2013: I would agree with many of the comments here that propose nuclear power as our next major source of energy. The main issue is that we cannot let nuclear become our LAST energy source. Nuclear power plants provide a huge amount of energy once they are constructed, and they are being built all across the world. In South East Asia there is underway what has been called a "nuclear renaissance," as developing nations turn to nuclear power to attain energy security and enable economic development. However, the issues of uranium mining and waste disposal can't be ignored. Nuclear can provide a stepping stone, an intermediate energy strategy that we can make use of while more renewable technologies are developed and implemented. What is most important is that our CURRENT sources of energy (i.e. coal, oil, and natural gas) be set aside as soon as possible.
Nuclear power definitely has a public image problem in the wake of Fukushima though; it won't be easy to convince some people that building more nuclear plants is a step in the right direction. Part of the issue comes down to a kind of psychological issue called the availability heuristic. Risks are perceived as greater when a specific or dramatic example comes to mind more easily. This is why people don't fear car accidents as much as they do plane crashes. Car accidents happen so frequently, they aren't sensational. They don't have a lot of salience (unless you've experienced one personally), and so not much emotional significance is attached to them. How does this fit in with nuclear? Imagine the reaction of Japan's government and public to the Fukushima disaster; an entire nation turns against nuclear overnight. Meanwhile in China, thousands of miners die every year extracting coal. The very coal that Japan will need to import to make up for shutting down nuclear plants! Nuclear power has enormous potential, as long as we design them safely and figure out a viable solution for disposing of waste.
Apr 23 2013: this stepping stone can last hundreds of years. i don't think that we need to solve 2200's problems now. just imagine if people of 1800 would have been assigned the task to come up with solutions to today's problems.Apr 23 2013: Alex this is definitely a promising idea, one current initiative is the development of using the U-238 instead of the current U-239. Unlike light-water reactors (LWRs), TWRs (Traveling wave reactors) use only a small amount (~10%) of enriched uranium-235 or other fissile fuel to initiate the nuclear reaction. The remainder of the fuel consists of natural or depleted uranium-238, the current waste of today's nuclear reactors. This fourth generation nuclear reactor could convert all current nuclear waste into fuel and is currently being developed by a team lead by Bill Gates called, "Terra power".
Apr 23 2013: That is fantastic! I wonder what the downsides are, or what issues would prevent these reactors from being implemented on a large enough scale?
Nuclear power in general offers an advantage over many other alternative energy sources in that it is easily scalable. Nuclear power plants could provide power to very large areas, without too much additional infrastructure being developed, and they aren't site-specific like wind turbines, dams, solar panels, etc. I suppose there are some sites you want to avoid... like tsunami prone areas.Apr 24 2013: I feel as if the question at hand is not if there is a new form of renewable energy, because we have so many options already presented. It seems that we have an abundance of creativity and ideas within the topic of renewable energy, now the main task is to implement these ideas. Looking at the Amory Lovins conversation and many of the comments on this particular conversation the answer seems like it is right in front of us but just out of reach...
Ultimately what needs to happen is not just some magical new form of renewable to cure all of our problems, but we must take it on ourselves to control, limit the amount of energy being used now. As well to make sure any forms of new, renewable energy does not effect our environment our the species diversity that would not have been "naturally" effected anyways.
Rohan Borkar
Apr 24 2013: While solar, wind, and tidal energy are extremely efficient, they're not as dependable as immediately obtainable sources of energy. While fossil fuels are a current primary source of energy, I believe hydrogen can be a valid future source. I talked about this in my 2nd convo-starter in my discussion of hydrogen fuel cells. Hydrogen is the most abundant substance in the universe, consisting of 75% of all mass. A hydrogen fuel cell runs on isolated hydrogen, kept on a metal substance to prevent it from escaping, and combines it with atmospheric oxygen to form water and electrical energy. Because no CO2 is produced, I assume this will not have a negative environmental impact on biodiversity and atmospheric CO2 levels. While this isn't the most rapid chemical reaction, there are significant catalysts (platinum in particular) that can work to help the reaction along. This brings me to why these fuel cells may not be realistic yet. Hydrogen fuel cells are expensive, modern car manufacturers spend roughly 1 million to create a functioning car. Additionally, these fuel cells are very delicate, and only work under optimal conditions (temperature, pressure, etc). The last issue is that hydrogen isn't easy to isolate, and readily escapes; so collecting and containing hydrogen requires more advances in technology. Despite all this, I think hydrogen fueled cells have a potential future in our growing economy, not just in cars but for many other products.
- +2
Apr 24 2013: I also like the idea of using something so abundant as hydrogen to meet our energy demands. Currently it needs much research and development however, deems promising in the future. I personally believe that we should go nuclear, Thorium in particular, until a more efficient means of utilizing hydrogen as a primary energy source becomes a reality. Switching away from fossil fuels as rapidly as possible will help curb global climate increase, saving as many species and biomes as possible. The biggest issue currently is transitioning out of fossil fuels... a relationship our current lifestyles cannot live without. Only through a successful transition between primary energy sources will we even begin to curb the damage we have inflicted.
Carly Otis
Apr 24 2013: I believe that solar, wind, and tidal energy are the most logical options for energy sources because they produce little to no pollution, contributing almost nothing to atmospheric carbon. While each of these options has their own drawbacks, they are far less drastic than the drawbacks of non-renewable resources, such as fossil fuels. If we, as a human race, switch from using fossil fuels to these forms of renewable energy, we will reduce our contribution to atmospheric CO2 while maintaining the lifestyle that we have become to accustomed to (cars, electronic devices, etc.). However, will the switch have a positive or negative effect on the biodiversity of ecosystems? In the long run, I believe that the outcome will be positive. To prove my point I am going to focus on wave/tidal energies. Many people are concerned that the placement of turbines in marine ecosystems (used to generate energy by rotating with tidal patterns) will significantly influence local marine organisms, not only by killing individual fish and reducing populations, but also by taking up space and damaging natural habitats. While these are very important factors to consider, I feel that the ultimate energy outcome of the turbines will suffice for the loss of these organisms. With the reduction in atmospheric CO2, ocean acidification will decrease, and many marine environments will be much healthier. On top of this, many marine organisms are sessile (immobile) and only require a hard substrate on which to grow. Placing turbines or other structures related to tidal energy will allow more substrate for these animals to grow on, increasing biodiversity in those locations. As you can see, there are pros and cons to all forms of energy, so we must choose which source to rely on based on how strong the positive and negative influences are.
- +2
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01697.x/abstractApr 24 2013: Global warming, species loss and habitat loss have all resulted largely in part of human behavior. With all of our efforts to redo the damage we've created in some regions and populations I worry that within new pursuits of alternatives we will lend up doing harm for our future generation's environment. There are pro's and con's to almost every form of energy so as we inspect new forms of energy we need to consider what will do the least harm today, tomorrow, and in the future. Like anything it will be hard to "rank" the potential impact of these fuels on biodiversity if we don't understand the full spectrum of how they affect human health, microbial, land, and marine biodiversity and of course the environment. One interesting prospect is the use of a fungus called Ascocoryne sacroid that has shown to convert cellulose into potential biofuels. It has about 80 clusters of genes that can work on the cellulose of many different plants (since they have cellulose :)) to make potential energy. This fungus isn't alone, Gliocladium roseum, is a fungi that grows in South America that can produce hydrocarbons and hydrocarbon derivatives. Essentially, it can produce " myco-diesel." These species can be added to a mixture of bio-waste such a plant waste from a farmland to breakdown the cellulose so that no additionally enzymes needed to be added. Is this a better option? I am not sure but its a start in the right direction.Apr 24 2013: While renewable forms of energy are being speculated to hopefully replace oil, it looks like it may take a while to strategize how we'll use it. However, I really liked the links you provided for this topic, because I wasn't too knowledgeable on the topic, so this was really helpful, I specially liked Lovin's 40 year plan because he showed some pretty good points on how renewable energy could benefit us, environmentally and budget wise, and it seems like it would be the least harmful to biodiversity. While I felt like the presentation was way too simplistic, it didn't look like a bad plan. So depending on what people want to prioritize, I think we can rank renewable forms of energy based on how they would impact biodiversity.Apr 24 2013: When looking at renewable forms of energy we have to realize that they're all going to have some negative effects. With Solar energy, manufacturing plants are producing extremely toxic silicon tetrachloride which makes the soil too acidic for plants, causes severe irritation to living tissues, and is highly toxic when ingested or inhaled. With wind you have habitat destruction from setting them up. They also kill lots of birds. Bio-fuels still have carbon emissions and they destroy habitats to create agricultural areas to grow bio-fields. Tidal generators initially destroy habitats. Each one will have some kind negative effect and so, what it really comes down to is what things are we willing to sacrifice or give up. Different people are going to rank certain things more important than others. Some people want to save the birds, others the fish etc. So yes, we can try to rank renewable forms of energy and their potential impacts but who gets to ultimately decide what is most important and most reasonable to sacrifice?Apr 24 2013: I don't believe there is a "silver bullet" for the problem of renewable/nonrenewable resources. My grandmother always said, "Moderation, moderation, moderation!" In order to reduce the amount of petroleum being drilled out of the Earth there will need to be a dramatic shift in how the masses think. And not all renewable energy sources are created equal. While solar could do really well in certain parts of the world it could fail in others. Same with geothermal, which is probably the most undervalued renewable resource we have. In Iceland almost 90% of their heat and hot water demand is supplied by geothermal heating. Here in Oregon, Oregon Institute of Technology in Klamath Falls is run on geothermal power. I think that cutting out all oil will be nearly impossible, but changing our usage to include renewables is the way to go. If solar panels work in your area, build in solar, if wind turbines work better, put up some turbines. Maybe some farmers could lease out the land they are now being paid to grow corn on and grow energy with turbines and solar panels. This will not happen though until people start to realize how dependent we are on oil, and that they will need to change their daily habits to accommodate renewable resources.
Apr 24 2013: This is definitely a smart direction to head towards. Harvesting energy based on abundance and ease of access makes the most sense.
Eun Min
Apr 24 2013: That's why corn price went up! Many countries depend on corn to feed people due to its decent price. However, using corn for biofuel, massive demands, raises its price which result in hunger in many countries. It is ridiculous!
- 0
Brad Haaf
Apr 24 2013: geothermal can be made 100% underground and have 0 impact. Only reason it emits co2 is because we do not use a closed loop system. Geothermal is by far the best answer and if used properly could be used to improve nature not impact it ... the only question is what are we willing to pay for the right answer.. or how hard are we willing to work at it.. the reality is our children will pay either way it's weather they pay in hard work or a degraded environment period
- +1
Ryan Mahan
Apr 24 2013: You brought up a good point about using the energy sources that are the most abundant in your area. There are renewable forms of energy all around us but we tend to use the more known and established energy sources like coal, gasoline, and other non-renewable hydrocarbons. By using the energy sources that are nearest to large populations the energy spent on transporting the established energy sources can be cut down dramatically. If we can use varying amounts of local renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and geothermal the environmental impact of transporting energy can be nearly cut out.
- +1
Haoyang Guo
Apr 24 2013: I think this is a issue that many people focus on and try to find some alternative energy, especially clean energy. When thinking about the energy with lowest impact on biodiversity, I think is solar power and wind power. Firstly, they are clean. Compared with oil and coal, the solar and wind do not produce carbon dioxide and gas pollutants. Secondly, they are kind of infinite. From Rob's talk, we know that oil cannot support us for a long time. And water is also deficient, but solar and wind are easy to get.
- +2
However, when I studied conservation biology, I knew that wind power blades can cause the birds death. So it also influences biodiversity, but compared with other forms of energy, it is a little.
Here are links related to solar energy and wind energy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llIbjC49FjsApr 24 2013: I've glimpsed through the discussion, and I'm surprised no one has brought up geo-exchange. It is different from the geothermal mentioned a few times in this feed, as it's not a means of generating electricity, rather a way to heat and cool buildings. It uses the constant temperature of the earth beneath the frost line as a source/sink for temperature regulation. A variation of the technology uses water as the source/sink. The new heat exchangers can now keep a building at room temperature without any other energy source besides the electricity to run the pumps and thermostat. They have even progressed to using heat collected from buildings in the summer to heat water. It has more potential to lower co2 levels than wind and solar, and can be more universally installed. With the new advances in drilling geo-exchange systems can be installed under existing parking lots and with a smaller surface area. There may be some set-backs (initial cost, sometimes increases property "footprint," difficult to install in urban areas), but no energy source will be perfect.
Jon Cox
Apr 24 2013: Wow, I have never heard of this kind of heating/cooling technology before. It sounds pretty brilliant. And considering impact on Earth and biodiversity it is very appealing. I think that one of the big environmental draws of these systems is that they not only harness renewable energy, but they do it without taking up lots of land area like solar or wind energy systems. Right now in the U.S. the carbon emission load from heating, cooling and hot water use is huge! These three things account for about 40% of carbon emissions from the U.S., and that is even comparable to vehicle emissions(*). Considering how many people there are on the planet and the growing percentage of us that live in cities, moving away from oil, propane and natural gas to heat and cool buildings is a necessary step towards, well, any kind of future.
- 0
This energy system is certainly not perfect, as you mentioned. Units weigh several tons and are not cheap. But the technology will inevitably improve and the system will become more streamlined and accessible. A geo-exchange system, coupled with solar power could be an excellent home energy setup. It will be interesting to see how the geo-exchange system evolves and whether or not it will gain popularity as the world makes its (hopefully quick) shift to alternative energy.
(*) http://www.geoexchange.org/
.Apr 24 2013: This is something that I've always thought a lot about. Before everyone begins going all crazy on renewable energy sources, we need to make sure we understand how that source, or the process of creating that source, affects the environment, more specifically biodiversity. I think the most important thing to think about when creating this new energy source and how it will affect biodiversity, is to keep it simple. FInd an energy source that is simple, has little if any type of emission, and if it does have some sort of byproduct, make sure we know how to handle that byproduct in a way that it doesn't harm the environment or the creatures in the environment. Also, we need to be thinking about multiple sources, not just one that's going to fix everything, because we won't find it..
Going away from crude oil, I think solar power, nuclear power, hydropower, and hydrogen power are a good start. Yes nuclear power and hydropower effect the environment in many negative ways and aren't renewable (expect hydropower which I think is), but these energy sources are important when supplying energy for large scale purposes like huge cities, and I believe we know enough about them to make these sources more efficient and so that their emissions and byproducts don't harm the environment or biodiversity. We are a long ways from hydrogen power and even though it's been a popular energy source since the 80's and no one has really figured out how to upscale this form of energy, I think it's the future for cars and other forms of transpiration.
Check out this fun video from the 80's about hydrogen power!
Even though finding an alternate energy source is important to biodiversity, I think the most important thing when it comes to human energy use and the environment is understanding that we use way to much energy. We as a species need to downsize our energy use first and foremost. That is the first step and hardest step we need to take!
Melissa Wong
Apr 24 2013: I think it's a good point that, with the point we're at in society, we really just need to have a greater understanding of our impact on the environment with our energy consumption on a societal level. I have a hard time seeing the human race making a global effort to downsize energy consumption, though I agree that that would be an amazing and important step for us to take. It's just that the global industrialization the capitalistic societies of most countries don't really lend themselves to movements like that, as sad as that is.
- +1
I do like the idea of nuclear power and hydropower as alternatives for larger societies that wouldn't efficiently run off of wind and solar power, however I do think the two do have some serious cons that may be hard to get over. I feel that it would be extremely difficult to figure out a method to harness hydropower without damming rivers, and there is no way to 'minimize' the effects of damming a river that I can think of, but I could be wrong. It may just be a price that we're going to have to pay, though, because really, anything is better than our current situation.Apr 24 2013: I think you bring up a good point by saying that we should be searching for multiple sources and not one source that would fix everything. Solar, wind or tidal energy aren't sufficient to supply large cities. However, these sources can be efficient in supplying smaller populations.
Although tidal and wind power effects marine and bird populations, I believe their overall effect on these populations is not nearly as detrimental as the effect of releasing large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.Apr 24 2013: After reading through all of these posts and doing some research on my own I agree that wind, wave, and solar power will be great resources for generating energy in the near future. While they all have their drawbacks I feel that they are still significantly better options than continuing to exploit the coal, oil, and natural gas reserves that are so detrimental to our planet. Also, as I ponder the effect that these energy sources have on biodiversity I still see them as far less harmful than our current energy sources.
For example, while wind turbines are responsible for the deaths of a significant number of birds, I find this as far less detrimental to biodiversity than say… the hundreds of acres that are occupied by the tailings ponds created from mining oil sands in Alberta Canada. These ponds are full of the toxic waste generated in the mining process and have not only killed thousands of migrating birds that have been unfortunate enough to use them as a place to land but are also leaching into the surrounding ecosystems affecting not only the plant and animal species but also the humans that use these ecosystems for subsistence.
So, the questions that are always lingering in my mind are weather or not we should rely on a new energy source appearing to save the world from the dangerous path it is going down? If considering the conservation of biodiversity as a main interest than reducing the world's reliance on these fuels should be our main goal. When looking at some of the major fuel consuming industries, for example agriculture, it seems to me that we would all benefit, along with biodiversity, from moving away from our reliance on fossil fuels. Our cash crop and export heavy agricultural system directly lowers biodiversity by planting monocultures that reduce the health of the soil and require extensive amounts of harmful inputs such as herbicides and pesticides.
Apr 24 2013: I completely agree and our current methods of harvesting oil are increasingly expensive. Unfortunately, many don't want to believe that we need to transition from oil. When will we finally stop and realize we are just beating a dead horse!!Apr 24 2013: All forms of energy are bound to impact biodiversity in some way or form when we consider how much energy we would need from them. Solar power requires rare minerals which must be mined out of the Earth which leads to environmental degradation and species loss. Hydro-electric power often floods terrestrial habitats that house specific species as well as creating troubles for aquatic ones. Nuclear energy is clean in its production but the potential harm done by the waste could be disastrous for biodiversity. Biofuels create a monoculture, leads to a great loss of species.
One of the renewable energies with the least impact on biodiversity animals and plant life in general is geothermal power. It may not be the most assessable renewable resource, but if we are looking at energy sources through a biodiversity lens, then it is one of the best. I think we need to seriously consider this as an alternative when considering preserving life other than our own.
Apr 24 2013: though current method of 2 straws in ground fracking the gap in the middle just seems dumb.. saw video explanation of it once and the presenter said something like " and as we run more 300+ degree hot water at extreme pressure through the 300+ degree rocks we find that the flow rate increases ! " and i couldn't help but lol thinking has this idiot scientist never seen cold water running through cold rock increasing the flow rate.. it's called the Grand Canyon.. and now there making these under extreme heat and pressure 1 mile underground .. ya awesome idea.. LOL and now there doing this with oil and gas ya no need for government regulation there lmao so dumbApr 23 2013: The type of renewable energy source that is most sustainable and minimizes any impact on biodiversity depends on the type of fossil fuel it will be replacing, and the characteristics of the area implementing the renewable energy source. A certain renewable fuel will do better in one area of the world rather than in another.
These limitations are prominent in all renewable fuel sources. Let's say we wanted to switch to cellulosic ethanol completely in the transportation sector so we can minimize the amount of emissions from vehicles. How much farmland would be needed? If all of the U.S. ran on biofuels like ethanol, we would need 415 million acres of corn to achieve this. However, we only have 406 million acres of usable farmland in the U.S., which is used for other agricultural purposes besides corn. If we were to expand farming, we would intensify environmental consequences. More importantly, blend wall is another problem. Automobiles today can only run on a mixture of 10% ethanol.
Wind is another renewable energy source for electricity. Spinning fan blades powered by the wind can generate electricity for us. These turbines are cost effective, avoid greenhouse gases, and have a very clear potential for growth. One downfall is intermittency; it may be windy on certain days, and hardly windy on other days. It may be windier in a certain region, like the path of a jet stream, rather than in a rocky, mountainous area. This poses a very serious problem for electric companies since there is no way to store electricity. There might be blackouts on a city that relies on wind, especially at peak-load times.
Knowing some of the small problems with our sustainable system, renewable energy may progress too slowly to minimize global warming. The question we must ask ourselves is not what renewable energy is best, but which one functions well in certain geographic regions.
Paige Walker
Apr 23 2013: Another issue with bioethanol is that alot of times the CO2 produced when manufacturing it nullifies any benefit to the reduction of CO2 from our cars. Also the loss of habitat due to this high demand of usable farmland would be of even greater cost to biodiversity.
- +1
Jordan Grace
Apr 23 2013: I think in the short term the notion of this idea is good. Farmland doesn't necessarily need to be used to produce cellulosic ethanol because it is made from lignocellulose, which is found in nearly every natural, free-growing plant without agricultural effort. These plants can be acquired from a wide variety of ways that don't involve farming. However, I do not know the effectiveness of these other acquisition methods or the amount of land involved. These plants also need to go through extensive processing steps which require a variety of chemicals. Every energy production method has some form of a trade off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanolApr 23 2013: I like the idea of geothermal energy because it releases far less carbon dioxide then burning fossil fuels and very little nitrous oxide and sulfur gas are given off. It can be constantly produced and can cut energy bills by 30-40%. The biggest down fall and ultimate demise of this type of energy is how much it costs to put geothermal energy plants in place. Of the figures I saw it costs roughly 1-4 million to drill well and in-home geothermal energy pump system are roughly $30,000. This is really expensive and our infrastructure here in the U.S. I don't believe has a good amount of access to drilling sites. Not to mention what kind of side effects drilling may have on biodiversity.
- +1
Vesta Tsao
Apr 23 2013: I would like to think combination of solar and wind. Solar panels have less biodiversity impacts because they are usually used on the roof or in the urban areas. Solar energy can be used as small on-site renewable energy or can also be used as enormous as solar thermal. Like the Parabolic trough design in a solar energy site. Wind turbines, as we all know, have some controversial issues with birds and raptors conservationists. However, I had a biology conservation class and had a guest lecture and he talked about how they are doing a study of birds species that are affected by wind farms. They are studying the species nesting behaviors and flying/ soaring distance from ground. If all the ecologists and conservation biologists dedicate to research and help analyze the site before the wind farm gets built, it will have less impact on birds and raptors.
- +2
However, I think a big land area like United States doesn't need to worry about land usage for energy generation. Small island countries, such as Taiwan, Japan, Philippines are not so lucky about renewable energy because they don't have enough land to build efficient wind farms or big solar energy sites to generate energy. Most of the energy still comes from coal and nuclear energy.
To respond to Bill Gates: Innovating to Zero talk, I would think we should do it both ways. It means we are all responsible for reducing energy usage and never give up on innovating new technologies that will help us generate enough energy but have less biodiversity impacts. This being said, I would argue for more dense urban areas and less spread out suburban. Dense urban areas with solar roof and green roof combined.
Eun Min
Apr 23 2013: I agree with you that solar and wind generated energy is very green. Now, we have another technology, ocean current energy, that uses water current to produce energy that might be used in a small island countries.(you can check this web site: http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/Renewable-Energy-Guide/Ocean-Current-Energy.aspx) I am from Maui, HI, and Hawaii is a good place to test those new green energies because of its unique environment, sunny, windy, and big waves. Despite these efforts, the electricity company on Maui, MECO, does not want to offer energy which is generated from the sun, wind, and water current because if they do, they need to lower the price, less profit! They are well aware of its safety, cost, and effects, so sad.
- 0
However, as you mentioned, the effects on birds, building an wind farm is not a good idea as well as using water current energy due to the effects on marine species. There are several different types of turbines used in ocean current energy which might alter the environment in the ocean due to its sound and altering water current. Although those alterations might be not a big problem for fish, the impact of those alterations on microbes might be extreme. Thus, although the renewable energies might help climate change, biodiversity can be altered.Apr 23 2013: you have to consider the manufacturing process too. once a solar panel is ready, it indeed poses no threat. but solar panels don't grow on trees.
Apr 23 2013: Yes, I agreed with you. Like every other renewable energy we need to put manufacturing process into account. Nuclear energy, wind turbines manufacture and any other elements. Everything need to be transported anyway. Wind turbines have huge issues on transportation to the sites because they are really enormous but I feel solar panels/ cells are easy to transfer and install. They are expensive and to produce, those cells are not "green" either. However, once they are installed and combined with other green roofs in a dense urban areas. I think this can be a promise of on-site energy generation.


text:
Moderators: Tonyblack, Jason, Toothy
poohcarrot wrote:It's better than the US cover
Terry actually said he 'didn't' have tattoos. He was supposed to get some when he got back to the island to show he was a man, but there was no one there to give them to him.Jan Van Quirm wrote:They're pretty lousy ones in that case.
With a polynesian-type culture if they had tattoos they'd be much darker and more than likely a kind of swirly pattern like the maoris have perhaps - besides Terry'd have said if he had tats wouldn't he?
poohcarrot wrote:It could be the mud from rolling with the piggies.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

subset: commoncrawl


text:
To Fence Or Not To Fence?
'Have An Outing With Family'
Nicely Taking First Steps
Convention Decision A Win For Obenshain?
Broadway Eyes Major Changes In Townhouse Regs
Posted: October 12, 2013
By MARK SELIG
© Copyright 2002-2015 by Daily News-Record - All Rights Reserved - Terms of Use/Privacy Policy


text:
Chaco Men's Z/2 Unaweep Sandals
Moosejaw Staff Pick - Allen, Birmingham Moosejaw
The Chaco Men's Z/2 Unaweep Sandals are durable sandals for the summer adventurer. The webbing wraps around your toe and your whole foot to secure the footbed to you comfortably without slipping off. The diamond shaped pattern prevents slipping and the anatomical LUVSEAT provides support for a long day of river and trail exploring. The Unaweep outsole is non-marking and features Vibram TC-1 rubber. The 4.5mm lugs will get you over slippery rocks, through the trail, and in and out of your canoe with ease. Adventure awaits.
FEATURES of the Chaco Men's Z/2 Unaweep Sandals
- Upper: Polyester jacquard webbing upper, with toe loop, wraps around the foot and through the midsole for the ultimate customized fit
- Adjustable and durable high tensile webbing heel risers
- Custom injection molded ladder lock for a secure hold
- Midsole: Durable LUVSEAT polyurethane footbed with slip resistant classic diamond pattern design
- Outsole: Non-marking Unaweep outsole with Vibram TC-1 rubber and 4.5mm lugs for maximum traction and durability on land and water
SPECIFICATIONS of the Chaco Men's Z/2 Unaweep Sandals
- Weight: 17.1 oz / 485 g
custy reviews
for the Chaco Men's Z/2 Unaweep Sandals
Average Custy Rating:
(based on 218 reviews)
|Love it
|Big Ups
Bad Ass Mo Fo
Sort of Experienced
Under 18
Over 45
Hunk and a Half
If you're looking for a stylish outdoorsy shoe, get Chacos. Don't buy Keens. Don't buy Merrell. They will only disappoint you and make you realize how much you wish you had Chacos. Super comfortable, and you get a sick tan line from them. Also they don't smell like Keens and Merrell.
Not much to say, other than this is an awesome sandal for adventuring. Great fit, and the toe loop is perfect for days on the water and afternoons spent cycling around town. In the winter, drop the toe loop and throw on a pair of wool socks - perfect cold weather footwear. Easy to clean and maintain. Adjustable straps not working smoothly, throw em' in the wash and you're good to go. Highly recommend!
These sandals are amazing. And I'm not a sandal guy. I've always thought they were incredibly uncomfortable, but clearly I had never worn Chacos. I've only been had them for 2 and a half weeks, but I've worn them every day. They only take about a week to break in until they are extremely comfortable and shape to your foot. They are going to be perfect for this summer and I'm sure the next few summers because they will last me a long time! Do yourself a favor and buy them now. The only regret I have is that I didn't buy them a long time ago.
I love my Chacos. To add to the numerous other positive reviews, I would support this older model over the newer, slimmed-down version. Do not be turned away by the weight - they are heavy for sandals, but for good reason: the durability of the burly Vibram sole will outlast expectations and provide the strength and protection required of it. When the sole does wear out, or the straps break / fall prey to your dog, Chaco will repair either for around twenty dollars.
I bought these chacos because I am going to be working at a summer camp come may, and I needed some shoes that I could wear for everything: River rafting, hiking, running, etc. I needed something that would be durable and wouldn't be hot or uncomfortable because I will be wearing them all summer. I know they'll last me years because I have seen my brother's last them years. I already wear them everywhere and I can't imagine going to camp without them.
I bought these chacos because I am going to be working at a summer camp come may, and I needed some shoes that I could wear for everything: River rafting, hiking, running, etc. I needed something that would be durable and wouldn't be hot or uncomfortable because I will be wearing them all summer. I know they'll last me years because I have seen my brother's last them years. I already wear them everywhere and I can't imagine going to camp without them.
I have 2 pairs of this sandal, one pair from right when Chaco was first born and made in Colorado with the Terrano sole, and one newer with the Unaweep sole. Both are great, and while the terrano sole being perfect for rough terrain, the unaweep doesn't disappoint! I have walked, hiked, backpacked, rode my bike, unicycle and have done various activities in these sandals and I cannot lodge a single complaint other than if you don't clean them they start to stink pretty bad! Personally, I would tell everyone that wants to use their sandals outdoors to go with the Z/2, if nothing else your toe will get used to it! It took me 3 days before I wouldn't do without it.
I have a pair of these going on 4 years old! Same strap and all! Extremely comfortable with great arch support and tread like a hiking boot! I wear them every day in the late spring through mid fall pretty much. With the toe strap I often leave the top loose when wearing them around casually and have no issue with them falling off. With a quick synch of the straps I can take off running or feel a little sturdier on a rough trail. When you first buy them and try them on it can take a bit to get the straps adjusted exactly to your foot. Once you do though they are like a glove.
The Toe strap is a nice feature, because it provides extra security for hiking, and keeps your foot closer to the shoe so stuff doesn't get in. If you feel like wearing socks with these, just fold the toe strap down and you instantly get that bad-ass socks-with-chacos look that we all desire so badly. It really is very comfy though... This version of the chaco is much nicer than the new kind with plastic that rubs on your ankle. Give these guys a little time to break in, but once you have some callus' built up, you'll never want to take these off.
Don't get me wrong, I love these shoes, but I was disappointed when the sole pealed off in the middle of my climbing trip this summer with less than a year of use. However, if you send them in (on your own dime) they will fix it for free. They also did it in a timely manner.
Chaco's are the perfect sandal for everyday, city, woods, car, and house. all around the best shoe i have owned in a long time. The are perfect for everything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
$99.95 - $104.95
Ships FREE When will I get it?


text:
Jump to content
|Last action by
|Your Favourite(?) UI Discrepancies in Microsoft (Windows) Discussion & Support
|How is Windows 10... even remotely close to being complete? in Microsoft Beta (Windows 10)
|Microsoft expected to announce major layoffs in the Lumia division in Front Page News
|Efficient Screen Capture Software for Windows in Software Discussion & Support
|multiple website on wamp in Web Design / Programming
Posted 27 February 2013 - 15:21
Posted 27 February 2013 - 17:02
perhaps things were different when I was in high school but we only changed our clothes for gym, not our underwear... After school sports were different with showers.. anyway.. thats one messed up teacher
we used to have an issue with our gym teacher stealing things from students however, it was not money, he would steal panties and things from the girls locker room.
Posted 27 February 2013 - 17:10
You should buy some from walmart and give to the teacher. He obviously needs some spare underwear.
we used to have an issue with our gym teacher stealing things from students however, it was not money, he would steal panties and things from the girls locker room.
Posted 27 February 2013 - 22:13
welllll if that's how you spell enough.....
One thing I don't get -- who is dumb enuff to leave money in a backpack ...
Posted 27 February 2013 - 22:13
Where else would they leave it though? You can't really play sports with a bunch of money stuffed down your socks.
Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:39
Principal told them to destroy potential court evidence? Seems like two people should be charged, one for theft, one for tampering with evidence.
So the head advised her to delete the recording..... wtf???
Good thing she sent a copy to her dad. Teachers are supposed to be model figures, and this person is abusing the trust placed on her.
welllll if that's how you spell enough.....
Sounds like a cover up is already in progressed. Schools are the very worst at that.
First of all depending on the state that this occurred .. Public such as a cafeteria or the football field (which a locker room is consider private) video taping is admissible in court but private is not at least not without a court permission. It would actually have to be done by Law Enforcement in order to be admissible in court and court approved for the location of the video to be recorded.
The investigation should have been done with Law Enforcement due to some possible problems of the teacher bringing charges against the child that video taped her and the school system.
This is partially because normal video taping there are signs that say one is being video taped. (in some states he told me that was illegal video taping someone without consent or prior posting of all activities are being video taped such as a bank or store)
Even though by evidence with looks alone that she is doing the act but in the video there is no confirmation some item was taken by the owners of the bag which should have also been included on the tape.
One major point to note also why there was the suggestion of deletion of the video is this:
Now should she have accidentally recorded a MINOR in a locker room In any form of undress on that tape then she could actually be charged with a serious crime. Also so would her father. We are talking child po rn here which is a serious crime. (he also went on to remark that even if she recorded herself on that tape in the locker room would possibly be considered that) (he also said it is one thing for a professional locker room to be on tape, but this is a High School Locker Room and a FEMALE locker room .... MAJOR RED FLAG FOR RECORDING)


text:
The Azera was once the top-of-the-line Hyundai sedan in North America. That, however, was before the appearance of the Genesis and, later, the Equus. Nowadays, the Azera is the slowest-selling Hyundai, despite a face-lift and powertrain revisions last year. Fortunately for fans of soft mid-size luxury sedans, the Azera will be the next Hyundai to get the full attention of the company's able engineers and designers. The attractive Korean-market Grandeur pictured here looks more or less identical to the next Azera that will go on sale in the States in early 2012. It follows the recent swoopy design themes of the Sonata, the Elantra, and the Accent. Until the new Azera reaches dealerships, the outgoing car (whose specifications are listed in the accompanying spec panel) will remain available, likely at discounted prices. That car is available in two Trim Levels: the base GLS model comes with a 260-hp, 3.3-liter V-6; the Limited gets a 283-hp, 3.8-liter V-6. Both engines deliver highway mileage in the high twenties with the help of a six-speed automatic transmission. Dual-zone climate control, power front seats, and iPod/USB auxiliary jacks are standard on all 2011 Azeras, and available luxury items include a power rear sunshade, leather upholstery, and an optional navigation system. The 2012 model will surely be even more luxurious, but don't be surprised if it utilizes smaller engines than the 2011 edition's. If the Azera's revamp is half as successful as that of recent Hyundais, sales of the Toyota Avalon, the Nissan Maxima, and the Volkswagen Passat will likely suffer.
Certified Pre Owned Price


text:
"We're a theatre company. And a band."
PigPen Theatre Co. began creating their unique brand of music, film, and theatre as freshmen at the Carnegie Mellon School of Drama in 2007. They have since produced their original plays Off-Broadway and toured the country – earning them critic's picks from The New York Times, Time Out New York, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, Boston Globe, and many more, ranking them in the top ten theatrical events of 2011, 2012, and 2013. They were the first group to win the NYC Fringe Festival's top honor for a play two years in a row (2010/11) and have gone on to win IRNE (2012, 2015) and Jeff Awards (2014) for their touring productions.
Their debut indie-folk album, "Bremen", was named #10 album of the year in The Huffington Post's 2012 Grammy preview. Their follow up EP, "The Way I'm Running", was premiered by American Songwriter and released on October 8th, 2013. Their sophomore album, "Whole Sun", was released on July 7th, 2015.
PigPen is thrilled to be working with Writers House, one of the world's leading young adult literary agencies, to develop their debut children's novel.
They are currently on tour as a band.


text:
Lego Splash! [1]
Build with Legos at Rodman Public Library when the Children's Department hosts Lego Splash!
The program will take place from 2:00-3:30pm. The theme for the month is "Outdoors".
We provide the Lego and Duplo bricks, you provide the creations! The program is open to all ages. No registration is required.
For more information, or if you would like to donate Lego or Duplo bricks to the library for these programs, stop by or call the Children's Department at 330-821-2665, ext. 223. (jm)


text:
Top Searches:
Horoscopes |
Salaries |
Washam |
July 22, 2013
Links: Australian Glass and the Pacific Northwest at Museum of Glass
Wsu Master Gardeners of Pierce County at Master Gardener of Pierce County
The Shape of Things by Neil Labute at Dukesbay Theater
All events for today »
Submit an event | All events
Action/Adventure, Comedy
When his late mother appears in a vision and tells him to go to Bucharest, Charlie immediately boards a plane across the Atlantic. But when he meets a fellow passenger, Charlie finds himself with another promise to fulfill. Charlie does so - and falls head over heels in love with Gabi, a beautiful musician. However, a vicious gangster has already laid claim to Gabi, and has no intention of letting her go. Determined to protect her, Charlie enters into the hallucinatory, Romanian underworld filled with violence and, strangely enough, love.
Rated R for some brutal violence, language throughout, sexuality/nudity, and drug use.
Visit the official site
Cast: Mads Mikkelsen, Evan Rachel Wood, Shia LaBeouf, Rupert Grint, Aubrey Plaza
Produced by:
Directed by: Fredrik Bond
Written by: Matt Drake
Running time: 1hr 48min
Opens: Nov 15, 2013 Limited


text:
Sitting in a Hugger Orange big-block Camaro is the kind of experience that causes people to do crazy things. The cackle of the chambered exhaust, the cowl induction hood, the black shift ball-it all works on your emotions. Your brain is telling you its 2008, but the sounds, sights and smells are all screaming "1969."
Overwhelmed by confusion, your right foot decides that not only is it 1969, but since you are 1,000 miles from home traffic laws do not apply. It smashes the accelerator pedal to the firewall and the 427 under the hood melts the tires as you scream away from the intersection.
As the revs climb and you powershift second, you're pinned to the flat bucket seat. Sure, it's a relic of the old days, but vintage vinyl never felt so good. The Hurst shifter works like magic and the sounds emanating from the barely-muffled exhaust announce for all the world that this is not a Prius coming down the street.
Third gear comes up quickly and reality rears its ugly head in the form of modern-day Florida traffic. You're off the throttle and on the brakes and scanning the rearview mirror for flashing lights. Your pulse is strumming to the beat of a Rat-powered Camaro. You have no choice but to the repeat the process over and over and over again.
When Don Yenko devised a way to slip a 427 cubic-inch big-block engine between the fenders of a '67 F-body, the venerable Yenko Camaro was born. While the '67 helped start the craze, the one car most everyone thinks about when the words "Yenko Camaro" are uttered is the '69. Yenko worked with Chevrolet to have the L72 installed on the assembly line via a Central Office Production Order (COPO). While the list of modifications is long and distinguished, only 201 are believed to have been built, with 171 coming with the M-21 four-speed, and 30 with the Turbo Hydramatic 400 automatic.
With there being such a small number produced, and an even smaller number that have survived 40 years of abuse by both the environment, racers, and enthusiasts alike, Jim Barber thought why not resurrect the legendary icon known as the Yenko Camaro? Enter the first product of the Yenko Camaro Continuation Series, this Hugger Orange '69 Yenko Camaro, badged car 202.
According to Barber, what you see here is not a Yenko clone, but an honest-to-goodness brand new Yenko Camaro. "I have to admit, it gets to me seeing a modified Camaro with stripes being called a Yenko clone," Jim comments. "With this car and this series, we wanted to do something brand new. What you get is a brand new Yenko Camaro just like what you would have gotten from Don back in '69."
While it took only eight weeks to build the car, it took two and a half years of planning to get the ball on this project rolling. "To do this car, we had to have something happen," Jim explains. "First, we needed GM to produce the 427. We didn't want to go someplace like World or Dart and build one, because we wanted to stay true to the original car and honor Don the right way.
"Once we got the new 427 engine from GM, things started falling into place. Auto Gear Equipment is building the brand new four-speed gearboxes, Moser the 12-bolt rear, and Stewart-Warner the gauges. We wanted everything to be brand new, so at times we had to have parts made. We wanted no shortcuts with this car."
Having previously done a project with Dynacorn, it was only common sense that Barber, who is the proprietor of Classic Automotive Restoration Specialists (CARS), would tab Dynacorn to supply one of its '69 Camaro bodies to the cause. With this Camaro being the prototype for future customer builds in what Barber coins the 1969 Yenko Camaro Continuation Series, he limited color choice to those that could be had in '69-Daytona Yellow, Hugger Orange, Lemans Blue, Rallye Green, Fathom Green, and Olympic Gold.


text:
Our staff at Coral Stone Club strives to make each visit, by every guest, more memorable than the last. The feeling of being part of a family at Coral Stone Club isn't limited to social time around the pool at sunset, but rather is a philosophy of everything we stand for. This includes staff, from the front office to housekeeping and maintenance to landscaping. Always with a smile, always willing to please, our team leader is an accomplished well-traveled professional who has worked in food & beverage, airline and hospitality. But don't take our word for it, just read this from a post on Trip Advisor from April 2011.
"The staff were very appropriate and anticipated to our needs. Maureen, our housekeeper was most helpful. Valerie, the manager, helped us with reservations when we could not make them ourselves … When combined with service, beauty, location and amenities, I cannot imagine needing/wanting to stay elsewhere in Grand Cayman."
"This is at least our 4th visit here to the island and staying at Coral Stone Club. Our family loves it here, the beach, the pool, the restaurants. Thanks You!! " – CORAL STONE CLUB GUEST
Sign up for our newsletter and receive periodical announcements, news and information about everything Coral Stone.
Guest Corner


text:
In our last issue, we detailed the job of installing a Zip Products HD Dana 36 differential in our '96 C4 coupe. Although the installation itself went off without a hitch, all that loosening and retightening of suspension components exacerbated what previously had been only a minor problem with the Vette's rear ride height. Indeed, no matter how hard we cranked down on the stock spring bolts, the freshly modified car persisted in evincing the kind of arse-in-the-sky stance you might expect from a '79 Camaro running a pair of Gabriel Hijackers. Not cool.
To preserve our C4's handling balance and restore a measure of aesthetic respectability, we contacted Vette Brakes & Products in St. Petersburg, Florida. VB&P has been fulfilling the chassis and suspension needs of the Corvette market for more than 30 years, and today boasts what is arguably the most wide-ranging product lineup in the industry. The company sent us a kit containing a pair of custom-length lowering bolts and all the hardware required to install them on any '84-'96 model.
As we have so often in the past, we decided to farm out the work to AntiVenom, a highly regarded Corvette specialty shop in nearby Seffner, Florida. Although this is a job a skilled mechanic could conceivably perform in the driveway, access to a lift, an air gun, and a specialized spring-compression tool will reduce installation time considerably. In our case, AV's Greg Lovell and Casey Willard had the bolt kit in and the car's ride height set in just under an hour. Follow along now to see how they did it, and to check out the finished product.
E.T. Update
With our C4's new rearend properly broken in, we day-tripped it up to Gainesville Raceway to see what effect the differential's shorter 3.54 gearset had on quarter-mile acceleration. The jaunt also afforded us an opportunity to see how the fresh ring-and-pinion affected the car's fuel mileage and driveability, the two areas that traditionally suffer most as a result of such installations.
Since the lower (numerically higher) gears promised to boost the car's off-the-line snap, we augmented them with a pair of Nitto's NT555R radial drag tires measuring a brawny 315/35R17. Unlike some of the other "drag radials" on the market, the Nittos feature a wear rating of 100 and a tread pattern that makes them suitable for occasional street use. (Just be sure to keep your Vette's traction-control system engaged in day-to-day driving and keep a close eye on tread depth, especially if you plan to use these tires in the rain.)


text:
Follow Us:
We want to wish a special thank you to some of our recent Ford customers near Signal Hill!
Welcome to Ken Grody Ford-Buena Park's website! We are a proud new Ford dealer, located near Signal Hill, California. We service Signal Hill, California for all individuals looking to buy or service a new Ford.
Ken Grody Ford-Buena Park carries a wide selection of new Fords near Signal Hill, California. Using our website you can view our new Ford cars.
Ken Grody Ford-Buena Park is proud to have an abundance of Fords near Signal Hill. Our sales team is in a combined effort to make sure each and every one of our customers receives the customer service that they each deserve. When you walk in our Ford dealership near Signal Hill, you'll see the difference for yourself. We know you'll find the perfect Ford or other brands near Signal Hill. So remember, when you are looking for a Ford, Ken Grody Ford-Buena Park near Signal Hill, CA is the dealership for you! We look forward to seeing you here!
Ken Grody Ford-Buena Park is your premier choice to service your Ford if you live near Signal Hill, CA. We have years of experience in servicing Fords. Our expertise is one of the reasons our customers always come back for their Ford repair. Signal Hill has a large amount of options for you when it comes to Ford service near Signal Hill CA, but no one will give you the professional treatment and friendly atmosphere like we do at Ken Grody Ford-Buena Park.
When the time does come for you to order Ford parts, our Ford dealership serving Signal Hill has the Ford parts for you! One of the most important aspects of a customer servicing dealership is making sure that you get what you want and what you need! Our parts department takes pride in knowing we carry a large amount of Ford parts at our Ford dealership near Signal Hill.
Ken Grody Ford-Buena Park is your top choice for a Ford dealer and is located in Buena Park, CA and is just a short drive from Signal Hill, CA.
Ford enthusiasts in the LOS ANGELES, SAN DIEGO, and ORANGE COUNTY areas
have helped keep Ford one of the most popular makes on the road
today. Whether you are a fan of the Ford Taurus X, Ford Edge, Ford
Escape, Ford Flex, Ford Escape Hybrid, Ford E-Series, Ford
Expedition, Ford Explorer, Ford Focus Coupe, Ford Explorer Sport
Trac, Ford F-150, Ford F-250, Ford F-350, Ford F-450, Ford Focus,
Ford Fusion, Ford Fusion Hybrid, Ford Mustang, Ford Ranger, or Ford
Taurus, Ken Grody Ford in Buena Park and Carlsbad, Southern
California have the inventory you're looking for.
Ken Grody Ford in Buena Park and San Diego, Southern California have a
complete Ford parts department with OEM Ford parts. Located in easy
driving distance from all Los Angeles and Orange County areas, Ken
Grody Ford Dealerships make it easy to get parts for your new or used
car, truck or SUV.
The factory trained, ASE certified Ford technicians at Ken Grody Ford in
Southern California are the ideal choice for keeping your new or used
Ken Grody Ford running like new.
We carry a large selection of used Ford cars, trucks and SUVs including
the popular Ford Edge, Ford Escape, Ford Escape Hybrid, Ford
E-Series, Ford Expedition, Ford Explorer, Ford Explorer Sport Trac,
Ford F-150, Ford F-250, Ford F-350, Ford F-450, Ford Flex, Ford
Focus, Ford Focus Coupe, Ford Fusion, Ford Fusion Hybrid, Ford
Mustang, Ford Ranger, Ford Taurus or Ford Taurus X
KenGrody Ford in Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego, Southern
California offer a variety of financing options. Whether you are
interested in a new or used car, our finance team will help you get
monthly payments that fit your budget.
Los Angeles Ford Dealerships areas include NORWALK, LOS ANGELES, West LA, Culver City, South Gate,
Glendale, Pomona, Torrance, Pasadena, El Monte, Inglewood, Downey,
West Covina, South Gate, Carson, Alhambra, Whittier, Lakewood,
Bellflower, Pico Rivera, Montebello, Paramount, Cerritos, La Mirada,
Artesia, Santa Fe Springs, and Bell Gardens.
ORANGE COUNTY FORD, Southern California, ANAHEIM, HUNTINGTON BEACH, Aliso Viejo, Costa
Mesa, Fullerton, Garden Grove, IRVINE, Lake Forest, Newport Beach,
Orange, Santa Ana, Tustin, Brea, Cypress, Dana Point, Fountain
Valley, La Habra, La Palma, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Los Alamitos,
Mission Viejo, Placentia, Rancho Santa Margarita, Seal Beach,
Stanton, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, and Yorba Linda.
SAN DIEGO FORD, Oceanside, Escondido, Vista, North County Ford, Vista, Encinitas,
Carlsbad, San Marcos, Leucadia, Solano Beach, Del Mar, La Costa,
Poway, Camp Pendleton, Fallbrook, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano,
Valley Center, La Mesa, Chula Vista, El Cajon, Miramar, San Marcos,
San Marcos, Poway, Encinitas, La Jolla, and Temecula.
Ken Grody Ford © 2010 - All rights reserved.
Website, CRM, SEO powered by VinSolutions.com™


text:
Man!!, killer fart
Just goes to show toilet humour ISN'T always funny.
Moderator: Regulators
I Mandalore wrote:Hah! None of you have experienced intense pain at the age of seven! At that age, I was watching my cat chew a cardboard tube. Then I thought "Gee, is that good for her?" So I grabbed the tube, intending to pick it up. My cat, still innocently chewing on the tube, bit clean through my left thumb, even the nail. To this day, there is a dent in that nail in the same spot. Also, At 13, I was lying on my bed. My other cat jumped onto my face, not knowing it was there. She cut me from the corner of my right eye about two inches down the side of my face. There is still a faintly visible scar there, just a hair lighter than the rest of my face. Both these injuries took about 2 weeks to fully recover from.
darththomas81 wrote: Two cat related incidents ay , makes me wonder what you're doing to those cats
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


text:
Details and Shopping
Customer Favorite
- FP Exclusive :
- Only sold thru Free People
Burnout velvet and lace maxi tank dress with deep "V"-back with cool strap detailing at back. Subtle bead trimming. Bottom hem lightly flares out. Lined. Overall, this dress is dramatic and statement-making all on its own!
*65% Cotton, 35% Nylon
*Hand Wash Cold
Measurements for Size 6:
Length: 59 1/2"
Bust (all around): 35"
Waist (all around): 29 1/2"
Armhole Drop: 9"
*65% Cotton, 35% Nylon
*Hand Wash Cold
Measurements for Size 6:
Length: 59 1/2"
Bust (all around): 35"
Waist (all around): 29 1/2"
Armhole Drop: 9"
Rated 4.1 out of 5Â by 8 reviewers.
Rated 4 out of 5Â by seexybuterflyart beautiful - this is a reat dress the discrepancy in the sizing is valid it is a difficult dress to fit however going by recomendations of other peole on here i sized up to a 6 when i wear a 3 or a 4 in dresses and it was too bg i think now im waiting for the 4 to arrive and i hope it fits!!! id love for it to fit tight enough so i dont have to wear a bra w it b cus the back is very sexy, it is a bit dressy but you can funky it up with cowboy boots or something 3.23.2013
Rated 5 out of 5Â by blue9girl9 Sexy and gorgeous I just got this in the store for $49. It was the last one and was a size 4 and I would normally wear a 6 but at that price, I figured might as well try to squeeze into it. Well, it fits like a glove and is sooooo sexy. It gives me hips, which I really don't have, and accentuates my derriere, which my boyfriend is going to love. I can't wait to wear it. It's "fancy" not casual. For date night or something special. What a steal. I LOVE THIS! Check your local store. 3.20.2013
Rated 4 out of 5Â by malmeow Loved This is such a beautiful dress and the velvet and lace detail is so intricate. I'm 5' 71/2'' a bigger bust but lean in my legs and arms with just some slight hips. I ordered the 4 because my usual 6 #for my height# was out of stock and i was ordering the dress for a special event and date. The fit was perfect everywhere but it was tight in the hips and thighs and then went straight into a really pretty mermaid sillouette. you cant tell so much in the web picture but it actually flares in the bottom a bit. The dress ended up only going down to aobut my ankles which i didn't mind but if you're as tall as i am i would suggest a 6 just for the length. In the end the dress worked out perfectly and i would highly suggest it. 3.8.2013
Rated 5 out of 5Â by hath great dress if it fits This is a great dress with one caveat, I suspect it might only work well on one body type and that is the body type that I have. So If you are larger in the upper body than you are in the lower body this dress is made for you. If you have, i.e. average to large bust or broad ribcage or shoulders with a slenderish waist and hips, you should be golden. The dress is cut slender in the hips so if you are pear shaped you will probably have to size up which then may make the top part to large. For an hourglass it may or may not work depending on how curvy you are on the bottom half. There is not a lot of give across the hips but a fair amount of give in the chest area. At 5'3" I was surprised to find this the perfect length just grazing the floor perfect with a small heel. I ordered my usual fp size 0 and find it true to size. Only thing is I may need to have the back straps taken in a tiny bit as they gape a little. 2.3.2013
Rated 5 out of 5Â by melissa1030 Beautiful! I ordered this dress about a month ago to wear to my boyfriend's school's inaugural ball. The velvet detailing is stunning in person, the cut of the bottom creates the most lovely mermaid silhouette, and ultimately I felt like a gypsy queen. However, I will mention that the other reviewers' complaints about the size discrepancy between the bust and the waist are valid - the 0 was a perfect fit, but I happen to have an odd body with a relatively large chest and no hips to speak of. If you're more conventionally shaped, alterations may be necessary. 1.24.2013
Rated 3 out of 5Â by Loveorhate Beautiful,but ... This dress is beautiful but does not fit me. It is very small in the waist area and huge on the top. For reference, I am 34D, and I ordered two size up from my regular size 6.The lace and velvet combination looks good, but the way this dress was executed is wrong. I had to return it. 1.20.2013
Rated 3 out of 5Â by Lapants Wished it fit I have been obsessed with this dress forever and actually had a chance to try it on in a Free People store yesterday. I was so sad because the dress is beautiful but the sizing I felt was off. The top was pretty big and the hips ran really tight. I am a bit pear shaped but this dress was especially tight in the hips. If I wanted to make this dress work it would require a lot of alterations and it just wouldn't be worth it. So, to all of you ladies out there with curves, this dress is not for you. Sad because it really is pretty. 12.17.2012
Rated 4 out of 5Â by Theozralian Aaaaamazing but size up!!! Maybe up up! This dress is beautiful. The lace is heavy and of good quality and the velvet and little detail as good as in the pictures. But i could cry, im a 12 and i could have gone up a size, maybe two... its small. I'm not sure if its my curves, im busty and booty and small in the middle. (size E chest# if you werent as busty maybe only go up a size. Normally i am a medium to a large in free people. :#... Very sad as it really is just lovely and if it fit i think it would be super comfy as well... Sob.. 12.5.2012
1-8 of 8
Product Reviews
There are no reviews for this product yet. Check back. or write a review yourself.