A year ago when we saw an article at MAKE: on how to make a fuel cell out of a band aid we knew we had to get in touch with this guy. Gavin D.J. Harper is a frequent contributor to EcoGeek and has written several books in McGraw Hill’s “Evil Genius” series.

Most recently, Gavin completed Solar Energy Projects for the Evil Genius. The book, filled with projects on how to harness the sun for your own personal gain, was forwarded by Willie Nelson and has been sitting on my nightstand for the last few days. We’re happy to have Gavin as this week’s ecogeek of the week.

EcoGeek: When I think of evil geniuses, I don’t generally thing of solar power. That’s more for benevolent geniuses. Where do evil geniuses fit with solar?

Gavin D.J. Harper: Hey Hank! You must have missed the Solar Powered Death Ray….. It’s OLD technology: Archimedes was rumoured to have suggested it waaay back when, like a lot of renewable innovations - we’ve known how to do it for a long time - we are only now starting to refine the technology. However, I must state, despite the natty title, I think solar power is definitely a force for good in the world.

EG: What’s your favorite project in the book?

GH: I think that the photochemical solar cells are ‘really cool’ as they are such a futuristic high tech - wowfabgroovy technology and yet they are something easy that you can make at home and get to understand relatively easily. It’s complicated science, but made easy for the smart kid in the street.

EG: What’s the easiest project in the book?

GH: Hmmm… that all depends on your skills and where you are coming from, but I have to say making a solar powered engine from a drinking bird is the most impressive project for the least effort… that is if you’re not a clumsy klutz and manage not to break the drinking bird (no names…. Gavin Harper).

EG: As an environmentalist, what scares your pants off.

GH: Transport. Electricity we can do easily if we put our minds to it. I have total faith in renewables, and think that their large scale adoption could meet our electricity needs with relative ease. However, transport is waaay scary - I think there are a lot of issues surrounding alternative vehicle fuels that we don’t yet fully understand - these problems are as much social, economic and political as they are technical. I also think that we are going to struggle to live in the built environments that we have created with a ‘reduced’ level of transport that will be necessitated by an increase in the cost of energy.

EG: What keeps you hopeful.

GH: Kids. I see some really great ideas come out of school Design & Technology departments, and I passionately believe that if we can get more kids fired up about science and technology, they can come up with some fantastic ideas for the future. I have less faith in adults… they’ve kind of got us where we are today, and the rate of change isn’t fast enough by far, so I think if you are going to do anything important… drum it into a kid who is a friend how important these issues of sustainability are, and show them, empower them with the tools to change the world. (Pass the tissues Hank, I think I’m going to burst into song.. “I believe that children are our future…. teach them well and let them lead the way….”)

EG: OK…that’s enough of that…What applications for solar power do you think will be most important in the next 20 years.

GH: Thin film… thin film… we all love thin film. I think we will see thin film everywhere very soon indeed. I look forward to seeing innovative building designs using vast arrays of thin film solar. I think we are going to see solar power become ‘ubiquitous’ due to the versatility of the thin film material - we are already moving forward to ‘ubiquitous computing,’ we see power-munching computers in every possible application - but I think we now need to move forward to ubiquitous energy generation, where everything you see around you has some element of embedded generation, doing its bit to capture some ambient energy.

EG: Do you hope that solar power will someday be a significant source of electricity for our planet?

GH: I don’t hope Hank, I ‘know.’ Let’s face it: as time goes on, our options are going to get more and more limited. We have this huge nuclear reactor that is 149 600 000 000m away (which I think is the only safe distance away from my home that I’d wish to have one), and it is producing this massive amount of energy for free. The smart man harnesses that energy. I think that there is going to have to be a focus on large scale solutions as well - I think that ‘embedded’ generation has it’s place in the world - and we can go a long way by deploying solar panels on our homes, but I think that we still need to be considering some element of centralised generation, albeit implemented using renewable technologies.

EG: What’s next for “High Tech Guru” Gavin D.J. Harper?

GH: Lots more learning, lots more books. I’m going to be a research student for the next several years, looking at Alternative Vehicle Fuels and their impact in society, which I am really excited about. I love writing the books, on the immediate horizon, ‘Fuel Cell Projects for the Evil Genius’ is going to print very soon indeed, and I’m already discussing ‘what next’ - probably a How-To book on Biodiesel Conversion. Of course, expect lots of posts to EcoGeek!

EcoGeek of the Week is a syndicated column from EcoGeek.org. If you would like to syndicate the column, or know an EcoGeek that proffiling, email our editor at editor@ecogeek.org

Dear EcoGeek,

My parents are always bugging me about computer usage and how the computers are sucking up energy. I want to know what I can do so that my computer doesn’t waste so much energy? I totally wanna go green and save the Earth from Global Warming!

- Lukas

Hey Lukas,

You probably won’t be surprised to discover that I spend quite a bit of time thinking about this very question. First, you should let your parents to know that your computer, with all of it’s amazing opportunities for educational, economic and social advancement, likely uses less power than the light bulbs that share the room with it.

Most desktop computers use between 100 to 150 watts. Now, this goes way up if you’ve got some kind of monster high-end gaming system, but 100 watts is a pretty good energy investment for what these glorious machines give us…in my opinion anyhow.

But that doesn’t mean that they’re aren’t steps you can take to decrease your computer’s power usage.

First, it’s important to realize that computers use varying amounts of power depending on what they’re doing. So writing an email doesn’t use as much power as playing Unreal Tournament. However, when your computer is completely idle, even if your monitor is off, it still is probably pulling about 100 watts from the wall. And when you’re not using your computer, that’s a pretty significant amount of waste.

So, always either shut down or suspend the operation of your computer when it’s going to be idle for a long time. This is the most important step we can take to decrease computer use. Of course, sometimes it’s hard to remember. Which is why I like to use Snap’s CO2Saver application. It keeps an eye on the way I use my computer, and idles my machine when I’m not using it. It also lets you know how much CO2 you’ve saved by using the application’s new settings. Unfortunately, it only works withy XP and Vista.

It’s also really important to consider not just the cost of the energy needed to power your machine, but also the energy required to create it. By most measures, more energy goes into creating a computer than will ever be used to keep it running. So one of the best ways to lower your computing carbon footprint is to try and keep your machine alive. You can do this a few ways. Don’t weigh your computer down with too many unnecessary applications. Learn how to upgrade and fix your computer when things go wrong, and never complain about taking your machine in to a repair shop. You’re doing the right thing for your pocket book and the environment.

And when you do finally need to upgrade (I like to try and make my computers last at least five years), look into computers that are designed specifically for efficiency. A new breed of low-energy desktops, like the Zonbu and Shuttle, are drawing far less than traditional PC’s. Dell, Toshiba and HP are all looking into low-energy solutions. Additionally, laptops will always be far more energy efficient than desktops, because they have to be designed to run on battery power.

I hope that’s a help to you and everybody else who’s concerned about PC power use. But don’t fret too much: you’ll save way more by changing your light bulbs than your computer.

EcoGeek of the Week is a weekly column provided by EcoGeek.org and syndicated all over the net. If you’d like to ask a question, or if you’re interested in syndicating the column, just use our submission form.

I’ve just finished reading The Lazy Environmentalist by Josh Dorfman. While not every chapter was for me (babies and children?!) the book contains a gigantic amount of information on how to make good, informed, green decisions. Without condescension or guilt trips, Dorfman lays down easy-to-digest information on how to live a cleaner greener life that isn’t a big pain in the ass.

We recently had a chance to talk to Josh about his book, which you can get at Amazon.com

EcoGeek: What is a Lazy Environmentalist?

Josh Dorfman: Lazy Environmentalists are people who want to be environmentally conscious, and will be, provided the choices are convenient and fit the way they want to live. Deep inside there’s probably a lazy environmentalist in just about all of us. After all, we live in the culture of convenience. The expectation of convenience seems like it has become hardwired into our DNA

EG: What do you say to the "America Can’t Buy Its Way to Sustainability" argument?

JD: I’d say that I agree. But that doesn’t mean we ought to disregard all the really cool green solutions presently available to us to get us moving in a significantly greener direction. To really solve climate change and other serious environmental challenges, we’re going to need a joint and massive effort from business, government, non-profit organizations, and consumer-citizens. We are all responsible for our situation, and we all have a role to play in achieving solutions.

EG: What, if anything, scares your pants off?

JD: The mindset that still thinks Hummers and McMansions are a good idea. That and snakes.

EG: What what gives you the energy to do this for a living?

JD: I like operating on the cutting-edge and "green" is where the action is. "Green" is where the most innovation is taking place across nearly every industry. "Green" is what’s going to determine whether the 21st century is peaceful or chaotic. And there’s no going back. We have to deal with what’s in front of us. That’s the great challenge for every generation alive. What could be more exciting?

EG: EcoGeek wasn’t listed in the "Electronics Information" resources section…WTF?

JD: A big mistake that’s being rectified immediately if not sooner.

EcoGeek of the Week is a syndicated column from EcoGeek.org. If you would like to syndicate the column, or know an EcoGeek that proffiling, email our editor at editor@ecogeek.org

I just saw a kinda disturbing article on fark.com and wondered what you would think of it. Could walking really be worse of the environment than driving?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece

Seulswalker

Seulswalker,

When I read your question, I assumed that there was no way the article had any credibility… that it was written by an angsty high school student who was sick of people telling him what to do. But I was wrong, and that is scary.

Someone took the results of a scientific study on how inefficient our food production system is, did some really bad math, and then found themselves a glorious headline that would send shock waves throughout the blogosphere. You could call it sensationalism…I just call it evil.

Here’s the "scientific" basis for their thesis:

Driving a typical UK car for 3 miles [4.8km] adds about 0.9 kg of CO2 to the atmosphere … If you walked instead, it would use about 180 calories. You’d need about 100g of beef to replace those calories, resulting in 3.6kg of emissions, or four times as much as driving.

Now I hope we can all see some gaping holes here, but maybe not all of them at first glance. So let’s go through the five I came up with one by one.

Most obviously, this assumes that 100% of the calories we use to walk come from beef. Actually roughly 75% of the calories most people burn come from plants (usually in the form of carbohydrates.) Plant calories are much less energy intensive to create. This leaves out Atkins dieters…but I hope they’re offset by vegetarians.

Second, We need to pick our battles in this war. As both driving and eating inevitably add to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, these are both issues that we should be working on. But if we go 100% I’dl rather remove cars than exercise from my lifestyle. Not because it’s better for the earth, but because it’s better for me.

Third, we have the supposed correspondence between exercise and consuming food. Yes, if you exercise, you’ll have to eat food to replace those calories, but the obesity epidemic is a testament to the fact that, frankly, most people eat because they want to, not because they need to.

Fourth is probably the least obvious hole…but it might turn out to be the most important. Walkers don’t travel thirty miles to go to the grocery store, but drivers do. Walkers opt for the corner grocer over the Wal-Mart. Driving doesn’t encourage waste because just because it’s inefficient. It also exponentially increases the amount of ground we can cover, creating sprawling cities and destroying local economies. Even if walking produced four times more CO2 emissions per mile than driving, walking reduces the number of miles traveled for most errands by ten to forty times.

Fifth, and this really is a huge omission, the study counts every piece of CO2 produced in the creation of the cow, but it only counts the carbon produced by burning the gasoline for the car. That’d be like only counting the CO2 that we exhale while walking. The hidden carbon costs of automobile travel are gigantic, more than double the final emissions for the car. They include the cost of mining and smelting the steel, pumping the oil, shipping the oil, refining the gasoline, shipping the gasoline, creation and maintenance of roads, construction of the car, etc etc. To leave out these costs while counting every drop of fertilizer sprinkled on a cow’s pasture is extremely foolish and, frankly, disappointing.

So, in short, walking is better for you and the world than driving is. Biking, being even more energy efficient than walking, however, is indeed better for the Earth. However, the point of the original study rings true. Our food production system is foolishly inefficient and unhealthy. It must be reformed in order for this to become a healthy and sustainable world. And for more on that, I suggest Bill McKibben’s Deep Economy.

When Ron Hochstetler graduated from Purdue with a degree in aviation technology, he didn’t know how different his path would be from the other graduates of his class. Though trained to work with the helicopters and jets that we today associate air travel, Ron became fascinated with a different type of craft. An aircraft that "belongs in the sky."

Now, twenty years later, Ron is one of the world’s leading experts in "lighter than air" technology. It’s an industry that many believe died with the Hindenburg. But Ron makes his case…the golden age of airships may be yet to come. And we’re happy to have him as this week’s EcoGeek of the Week.

EcoGeek: How does someone go about becoming an internationally recognized airship expert?

Ron Hochstetler: When I graduated from college I saw lots of people going into major technical fields where pretty much everything had already been developed and the technologies they’d be working on were very mature. Not much room for a new guy to make a new mark. But then I read an article about a little company in Britain (Airship Industries) that wanted to build modern technology airships. I figured here was a part of aviation that was cool, was still pretty much unexploited, and was made up of such a small cadre of people that just about any contributions I could make would have some significance. The short answer is: if you pick a small pond a lot of the splashes you make will be big ones.

EG: In as brief a list as possible, what kind of advantages does airship travel hold over traditional air travel?

RH: The best word picture I can give you is to refer back to where we left off, with the Hindenburg. It could carry a whopping 100 tons of payload and people at a top speed of 83 mph (cruise was closer to 65 mph). Yet it was powered by only four diesel engines each with a maximum of about 1,200 hp., so for less than the horsepower of one engine on a four engine C-130 turboprop cargo plane (that only carries 20 tons) the Hindenburg could fly from Southern Germany all the way to the US in about 72 hours. The transport airship exchanges time for fuel, and yields space. What I mean is that with airship you can travel to your destination consuming a fraction of the fuel required by a jet aircraft of the same payload capacity, but at a slower airspeed. Your airship cruising speed is about one-tenth of the jet’s speed, but because you’re traveling slower than the jet, your airship cabin area can be quite spacious and give you an air travel experience that is actually comfortable. The airship could be outfitted with broadband access to the Internet, satellite phone communications, and all the media entertainment you can imagine. You could have wide open sightseeing windows, sit down dinners, or full sleeping quarters where you can stretch out in a real bed. And this would not just be for the First Class crowd: the airship has the extravagance of space, and can offer plenty to every passenger.

EG: Could travel by airship be more efficient than automobile or train travel? What about barge shipping?

RH: Barges and ships are among the most fuel efficient ways to ship anything. In countries where you have efficient ground transportation systems, the airship is not going to be competitive. Where the airship can compete is with short-distance air transport, or with ground transportation in those places where the ground transport system is poor to non-existent. Here, I’m talking about passenger transport; if you switch to considering the airship for its cargo hauling capabilities, the news gets even better. If the stuff you what to haul won’t fit into your aircraft, your ground transport vehicles, or over your highways and railways, and you’re not in a real hurry to ship it, then the cargo airship begins to make economic and fuel efficient sense. If designed properly, an airship can do vertical load transfers. That means you can hover over the stuff you want to pick up, lift it up to the airship by an internal hoist, and then motor off to where you want to put your stuff back on the earth. This type of cargo airship would be used more like a “flying forklift,” and would be utilized to move outsized or heavy things around a city, construction site, or around a region where there are insufficient bridges or roads. This type of airship could really change the way modern society moves its stuff because it doesn’t depend on highways, railroads, bridges (that sometimes crash), or airports. You have almost complete freedom to move just about anything, just about anywhere, just about any time, provided you’re not in a hurry.

EG: What do you think are the biggest obstacles facing the airship industry?

RH: The technology is available today to build airships with payloads of up to approximately 90 tons lift. With an R&D program focused on certain key enabling airship technologies, it should be possible to build airships up to the range of around 350 tons lift. The problem is that we need good business and engineering leadership to craft the airship development programs that can build the modern airships that society will use. The airship industry has no shortage of enthusiasts, visionaries, and passionate dreamers, but it’s almost barren of the steely-eyed business people who have the professionalism and expertise to first build the solid enterprise that can build the airships. I guess it’s just easier for these people to get an MBA and go manage an IT start-up or a Fortune 500 company. The airship market is there, and the technology is in our hands, but where do we find the business architects who have the courage to take on this great challenge?

The other obstacle (if you can call it that) is the scale of the airship. The bigger the airship, the more efficient and useful it is, and the more challenging to construct. Eventually, the sheer size of the craft begins to tax the engineers as they devise ways to manufacture and join the increasingly large (and lightweight) structures that make up the ships.

EG: Are there any particularly exciting advances in airships that might make the technology more feasible in the near future?

RH: The new high strength fabrics, light weight aircraft composite materials, and computer-aided design tools have revolutionized airship design. Modern computer simulation and modeling also allow us to better navigate around inclement weather conditions. In the old days, the pilots of the big airships had to take their best guess at where the bad weather was. Now we can minutely plan every flight route to minimize the impact of headwinds, and actually take advantage of the weather to lower our airship fuel consumption by 20% to 50%, depending on the particular journey.

The other interesting change has been the advances in hydrogen powered systems. The airship has some very unique qualities that enable it to probably be the most fuel efficient (and environmentally friendly) air transport system possible. The large surface area of the airship causes the high aerodynamic drag that limits its airspeed, but that surface area can be used to carry thousands of square feet of solar cells to provide electric power for the ship’s propulsive needs. The non-flammable helium inside the ship also provides a perfect environment in which to store hydrogen fuel containers that can provide hydrogen not as a lifting gas (as was used in the Hindenburg), but as a fuel for either a fuel cell propulsion system or simply to burn in conventional internal combustion propulsion engines. These technologies could be used to produce “zero emissions” transport airships with the ability to carry hundreds of tons of cargo or people over distances of hundreds or even thousands of miles.

EG: Are there applications that airship travel is particularly suited for?

RH: Slightly more than half of all passenger jet aircraft travel is over distances of approximately 400 miles or less. Airship passenger travel gets more competitive with jet travel as the overall trip distance decreases (and as jet fuel becomes more expensive). But you have to factor in the “total trip” time, which includes travel to the airport, parking the car, going through security, boarding the plane, waiting for clearance to take off, etc… The amount of time spent at either end of your journey (whether by jet or airship or whatever) remains the same regardless of how long the trip itself is. So, if you can use the airship’s ability to do a vertical landing in or near the locations you really want to get to or from, then you have a good shot at reducing the total point-to-point travel time enough to make the airship quite acceptable for short distance air travel.

EG: You’re obviously captivated and excited by this technology…how did you catch the bug, and why do you think you’ve stuck with it for so long?

RH: I got interested in airships when the Goodyear blimp came to Purdue University for a football game. The ship was moored out at the University airport where I was taking most of my aviation classes. My parents had come down to visit me that weekend, so we all went out to see the ship after dark. The ship was surrounded by a ring of ground lights which made it shine silvery against the night sky. The door of the ship was open, and my dad and I could barely see inside because the ground crew had ballasted the ship to be slightly light so her tail was high and her landing gear was about a foot off of the ground. My mother wanted to see inside the ship, so she grabbed the hand rail that runs along the side of the gondola and pulled the airship down to the ground! At that moment I knew this aircraft was something completely different from the airplanes and helicopters I’d been training on. I saw that this was an aircraft that actually belonged in the sky, and I decided I belonged with the airships! I have no regrets after more than 20 years in this business. I also have great optimism that the airship’s golden age has not passed, but is truly upon us. The conjunction of soaring fuel costs and increasing concern about aviation’s contribution of GHGs to the environment is causing mainstream decision makers to reconsider the qualities of the airship. I’m convinced that the modern airship is part of the solution set for dealing with global warming, in addition to providing an affordable and sustainable air transportation option to the developed and developing countries.

EcoGeek of the Week is a syndicated column from EcoGeek.org. If you would like to syndicate the column, or suggest an EcoGeek to be featured, please contact our editor at editor@ecogeek.org.

Dear EcoGeek,

Who killed the electric car? Seriously, why can’t I buy one yet and when will I be able to?

Alan Carney
Dallas, Texas

Hey Alan, Much love to the people who made Who Killed the Electric Car?, because they got a lot of stuff right. It wasn’t any one person, corporation or technicality that killed the EV1. As with all product failures, it was a combination of tons of factors.

The reason major auto companies aren’t making electric vehicles look like this. First, Americans were looking for SUVs, not ultralights. Second, the technology was primitive, the biggest problem being that batteries could only take cars a hundred miles before they needed to spend hours at a charging station. Third, major car companies were too foolish to see that, in the next decade, electric cars could quickly become technologically viable and extremely appealing, so the abandoned their projects completely.

And now, here we are. Electric cars are technologically viable and extremely appealing. But no one’s done the kind of development necessary to introduce a pure electric vehicle to the mass consumer market. But it will happen. It’s just probably going to happen intermittently, by solving all three of the above problems in different ways.

Drivers will have to get used to smaller, lighter, sportier, more aerodynamic vehicles. It’s already starting to happen, and the new Prius body, most folks agree, is a very nice looking car.

Technology to make EVs more viable are being developed constantly. Ten minute recharge times, higher capacities and energy densities, and safer and more environmentally friendly components are all on the way, if not already proven. Of course, there’s a difference between a battery working in the lab, and being able to get it into a car for less than $30,000.

The short answer, for you, is that you can buy an electric car now. But you’ll either have to pay a premium for a Tesla or a Phoenix model (both companies have battery packs that cost more than Honda Civic) or you’ll have to go small, with NICE Cars or the Smart Fortwo. Or you can head to EVFinder, and search through listings for quite a lot of new and used electric vehicles.

But if you wait for mainstream manufacturers to catch on, it might be a while. Plug-in hybrids will soon (though no one has any concrete dates planned) offer an intermittent step which will allow for at least some emissions-free driving. We should see a Prius plug-in and possibly a plug-in from Saturn before 2010. And plug-in series hybrids (which always use the electric engine, but use a gasoline engine to charge the batteries (not to spin the wheels)) will offer another step toward full EVs.

But we’re going to have to wait for the ultra-expensive, high capacity, quick charging batteries to start getting way cheaper before we see any major car company embracing electric vehicles. Because if the EV1 hit the streets again…chances are, we still wouldn’t be able to get it off life support.

Ask the EcoGeek is a syndicated column provided by EcoGeek.org. If you want to ask a question, send it to Hank through our submission form.

Editor’s note: A few technical glitches kept us from getting EcoGeek of the Week up on time this week — we apologize for that. We didn’t want to skip this one, as the featured EcoGeek is a good friend to all of us in the green web.

Jonathon D. Colman is the Senior Manager of Digital Marketing at The Nature Conservancy. As such, it’s kinda his job to understand the wild ways of the internet and then to harness it’s raw power for the forces of awesome. Of course, The Nature Conservancy is one of the big players in the "International Alliance for Awesomeness." He’ll be giving us his take on the web, digital media, and saving this world. We’re excited to have Jonathon as this week’s EcoGeek of the Week.

EG: OK…lets get this out of the way…briefly, what do you actually do…

JDC: Sure thing! As you know, the mission of The Nature Conservancy is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive.

So I help the Conservancy accomplish that vision by leading the strategic management, marketing, and promotion of our flagship web site, www.nature.org. That means that I’ve got my fingers in a number of cookie jars every day: web development, web traffic recording and analytics, blog and online community outreach, search engine optimization, online ad placements, and posting our stories to online social networks and other “web 2.0” sites. Not to mention organizing a redesign of our web site, developing an RFP for a new web content management system, implementing a new web analytics system, and chatting with my coworkers about how great LOST and Battlestar Galactica are.

Now, if you’re like me – and I am – then you’re a geek and would love all that stuff. So I tend to think of my job as just a way of being paid to have fun and work with the best and brightest.

EG: I’ve seen some resistance among big environmental organizations to embracing online media. Do you run into that at The Nature Conservancy, and, if so, how do you deal with it?

JDC: I think that we face similar challenges with online media as many other organizations: lots of great ideas and very little staff and budget. The way we’ve overcome this hurdle is to invest our efforts where they’ll have the biggest bang for the buck (like bidding on search engine keywords using Google AdWords) as well as using all of the great, free tools and networks that are now available, like Google Analytics, Google Video, Care2, and Gather.com. We’ve also found a great partner in the Public Radio Exchange, which produces our weekly Nature Stories podcast.

I think that nonprofits have been stymied by online communities, what they’re for, how to build them, and how to engage them. Our guiding philosophy here is to engage people where they’re already being active rather than spending time in R&D building our own version of things that already exist. For example, rather than building our own photo-sharing application, the Conservancy ran a photo contest on Flickr. Rather than build our own GIS mapping system, we put together a Google Maps mashup with the locations of our nature preserves.

Why try to reinvent the wheel when a best-in-class web presence or tool already exists and has a huge audience of millions of people? We’d much rather leverage the expertise of existing communities to find new supporters and engage our existing audiences with fun, exciting opportunities.

EG: Why do you think it took the environmental movement so long to catch the wave? And do you think we’ve suffered because of it?

JDC: A lot of people working in nonprofit technology (or as we call it, “nptech”), are “accidental techies”; that is, they’ve been slated with web or technical projects because there’s literally no one else to do them. Furthermore, if they’re lucky, these folks might get to spend 5-10% of their time working on those technology projects when they’re not also doing media relations, fundraising, organizing events, and managing the office. It’s hard enough for someone like that to publish a web page, let alone adhere to XHTML standards compliance, optimize their pages for search engines, and – God forbid! – keep up to date with Zeldman, Eric Meyer, Beth Kanter, Holly Ross, and Seth Godin.

A lot of nonprofits invest heavily in program work – after all, that’s what the donations are supposed to be supporting, right? And that’s what gets you a four-star rating on Charity Navigator. So having a nifty, helpful web site that establishes a strong, trustworthy, credible brand is sometimes seen as an afterthought.

What we’ve found at the Conservancy, however, is that the web can bring in new supporters, new ideas and resources for project work, and new passion and emotional investment from existing members. Leveraging the strength of your offline, “bricks-and-mortar” brand can help you reach new audiences online.

The environmental movement isn’t suffering for falling behind; we’re embracing the online world and are catching up quickly. Look at the success of TreeHugger. Look at the Google Trends curve for searches on “global warming." Look at how EcoGeek is getting dugg every few minutes. I’d say that green is bringing sexy back in a pretty big way.

EG: We at EcoGeek love readers of sites like Digg and Reddit and Slashdot. Has TNC had success with social news?

JDC: Social news is a big, growing area for us. The type of things we post regularly on Digg and Netscape and Newsvine are real-world events, announcements, and discoveries – so our online efforts dovetail with what we’re doing offline. We’re becoming popular on Digg and a number of the other big social news networks regularly because of the strength of our content. We’ve brought huge amounts of new visitors to our site through these tools and have worked hard to develop engaging communities on them at the same time.

We see these emerging web sites and news venues as being important because they dictate, for a growing amount of people, how news and information are now being discovered online. There are a lot of good, engaging stories that end up on the cutting room floor of the daily newspaper and nightly TV news, even though they’re worthy of broadcast, solely for lack of space, right? Well, social news networks don’t have to plan their layout in picas, charge for home delivery, and never run out of space for breaking news. And because they’re fairly democratic, our organization has just as much chance at engaging people with our news and stories as does anyone else.

As far as demographics, my sense of the folks using social media and “web 2.0” sites is that they’re very advanced in their grasp of technology and the online world. They have access to many sources of information and are used to looking at multiple perspectives of issues. They’re also not afraid to speak their minds where they see fault – or inspiration! – and, indeed, expect to be able to share their thoughts directly with the entities making the news.

Me, I don’t want to play it safe and only talk just to the folks who I know are going to agree with my ideas about the importance of conservation… that’s way too easy and it leads only to a lack of growth. I want to talk with the ones who are skeptical, who aren’t so sure of the science, who don’t believe everything that they’re told. Ultimately, if I can help them to convince themselves to support the environment, then they’ll be much more passionate about it and motivated to make a real change than if I just spam them with e-mail day after day. In reality, they’ll do all of the hard work of conversion; I’m just helping them by making resources and information available.

I love meeting new people on these networks and finding out what they’re interested in, so EcoGeek readers, please send me your connection requests!

EG: I’ve been really impressed by a lot of TNC’s current projects. Are you proud of what you guys do?

JDC: You bet! It’s a great adventure each day, just getting up, walking out the door and taking public transportation to work. We could be focusing on the Great Bear Rainforest in Canada, the endangered coral reefs in tropical areas around the world, or even the oft-overlooked connections between HIV/AIDS and wildlife conservation in Africa. It’s great to work with such dedicated, passionate people. No two days are ever alike and while there are always little things that get in the way, we try to keep in mind that everyone wants to help protect nature to benefit people, animals, and the environment as a whole.

The bottom line is that The Nature Conservancy is an organization that gets things done…or as one of my colleagues often states, “Conservation plus adrenaline equals 100% job satisfaction!”

EG: Sometimes this business can get a little overwhelming. Is there any issue that particularly scares your pants off?

JDC: Climate change is no joke – it’s not the sort of thing we can play around with and ask for a do-over if we get it wrong. I sincerely believe it’s the single biggest threat facing our world right now. The upside to this is that it’s not all doom and gloom – there are many things that we can do in terms of science, technology, policies, business practices, and personal behaviors to help slow the effects of climate change.

To this end, the Conservancy recently launched a carbon footprint calculator to help our visitors determine their impact on the climate. Our web application helps you see that even little changes in our daily routines can make a big difference when everyone works together.

EG: It’s a pretty scary world…at the end of the day, what keeps you hopeful?

JDC: The passion of our supporters, the dedication and persistence of the Conservancy’s staff, the discoveries that we’re making every day in conservation science, the way that people are using the web to get closer to each other than ever before, and the strength of human creativity and imagination.

EG: Do you love the internet? Why?

JDC: It’s often hard for us to remember that, just a little over a decade ago, the InterWeb as we know it didn’t exist. Not a drop of Wi-fi to be found in coffee shops, no way to pay bills online, and it was about the last place you’d go if you were trying to find a job, an apartment, or even a movie to see. In fact, I can specifically remember not loving the Internet when all the discussion on it was about how people were going to use it to make money, if only they could figure out how!

But what I see happening today is people from all over the world getting to know one another, breaking down barriers, and discovering new and innovative ways to make change happen on issues that they care about. And that’s damn exciting! We couldn’t have guessed fifteen years ago that my job would even exist, let alone the Internet as it is now. I love it, I live it, and I spend a good portion of my waking moments using it. I think it’s the tool that humanity is using to turn our dreams into reality and construct the future from the present.

EcoGeek of the Week is a syndicated column from EcoGeek.org. If you would like to syndicate the column, or know an EcoGeek that proffiling, email our editor at editor@ecogeek.org

Dear EcoGeek,

Have there been any developments in the pursuit of sustainable, cost-effective alternatives to plastics? I am aware of the recent gains in using corn starch to produce biodegradible plastics (chocolate candy trays, shopping bags, etc.), but what about durable goods such as toolboxes, exercise equipment, or any other product made from plastic that is designed to last.

Thanks for your time and expertise.

Jim

Hey Jim,
It does seem a bit silly that we wouldn’t solve two problems at once here. I mean, as long as we’re removing oil from the process, why don’t we move away from our foolish disposable-everything culture as well?

But this all becomes more clear if we ask a different question. Instead of “why aren’t there durable bio-plastics?” we should first ask “what’s wrong with durable petro-plastics?” Lets start by listing the reasons why oil sucks.

1. We will eventually run out
2. When we burn it, it creates CO2
3. When we throw away petro-plastic, it pretty much never biodegrades and can harm wildlife
4. Refining oil is energy intensive and produces toxic chemicals
5. We often have to import it from places with unstable politics

Now, those are five really good reasons to stop burning oil. Taken together, I can’t quite figure out why we’re still burning the stuff. But when we talk about disposable plastics, the second problem, that of carbon dioxide, isn’t a problem anymore, so only four problems remain. And when we list reasons for replacing durable products, the list gets even shorter.

We don’t burn it, we don’t throw it away, and even if we do, it would persist as much as petro-plastics. Plus, the demand for durable petro-plastics is considerably lower than the demand for fuel and disposable plastic. Because we’re talking about fewer petrochemicals in total, all of the above problems are diminished. In fact, creating durable plastics is pretty much the most intelligent use of oil, as we gain permanent benefits from the items we produce and the environmental consequences are much less significant.

That being said, the world would probably be better off if we figured out ways to completely erase our need for oil. And some people have begun creating durable plastics from biological stock. There’s no technical reason why we can’t do it. But there are fewer economic and ecological reasons to replace durable plastics than disposable plastics.

Ask the EcoGeek is a syndicated column provided by EcoGeek.org. If you’d like to ask the ecogeek a question you can submit it to him through our form. If you’re interested in syndicating the column, email our editor at editor@ecogeek.org.

Editor’s note: This week’s EcoGeek of the Week interview was conducted by our own Philip Proefrock (who also writes at EcoGeek.org).

Tobias S. Buckell is a Caribbean-born speculative fiction writer who grew up in Grenada, the British Virgin Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. He has published stories in various magazines and anthologies. He is a Clarion graduate, Writers of The Future winner, and Campbell Award for Best New SF Writer Finalist. We at EcoGeek are huge fans of his novels and his blog, and we’re happy to have him as our first Sci Fi EcoGeek of the Week.

The first 1/3 of two of his novels Crystal Rain and Ragamuffin are available online.

EcoGeek: What is your vision of life on Earth 100 years from now?

Tobias Buckell: More of the same, I hope. We’re inching forward in our own way, and we’ve dodged a lot of big mistakes. I hope we’re able to fumble on, and I hope that we’re able to bring in all the other countries that are developing right now along instead of viewing them as competitors.

EG: You posted a piece on your blog (tobiasbuckell.com) a couple of months ago where you decided you were a "nuclear power loving environmentalist." Can you elaborate further about how you consider yourself an environmentalist?

TB: It’s a bit of a flip phrase on my part. I’m more an environmentalist due to my background living off the grid, so to speak, because I grew up living on a boat in the Caribbean. You live on a boat and you have your diesel engine and wind generator to charge up the batteries, you use significantly less water, you sail places, and your overall footprint is a bit lower. Moving to the mainland here in the US I use vastly more space and artificial light and so on. As a kid I always viewed people living in houses as extremely wasteful. Now I’m one of them. And one thing I found, moving into a house, is that I’m already strapped for money, time, and the environment around me (people, products, access to products) doesn’t focus on rewarding environmentally lower footprint. So I’m not really an environmentalist any more than a wannabe hippy college prof who happens to drive a Prius and hammer his students about how horribly un-environmental they is, but I am intrinsically interested in what it will take to become a better steward of the Earth, but in a way that is easily adoptable by consumers.

I’m also a die-hard capitalist and market believer. So the environmental solutions that interest me are ones that seem counter-intuitive and that are easy behaviors to modify. You see, getting better about our impact on the Earth is like trying to get fit. We all know we’re supposed to do it, but altering it is tough. Micky D’s is just around the corner, people get defensive when you go on a diet, and if you radically alter your diet and life, socially there is pressure on you to not be different or do it (lift weights intensely, or do a low-carb diet, and be very open about it, and see how people respond, it’s usually negatively or suspiciously).

I heard of a green power co-op offering free beer at an expo, I see the Tesla electric car that’s a sexy, fast, sports car. That’s the approach we need. We need the iPod of alternative energy, so to speak, not the ‘build your own Linux distro’ version. And as a capitalist, we need competing alternative energy sources, diversification.

I’m not against using fossil fuels, either, it’s that burning them, changing them into a non-recoverable state, is criminal. Our world depends on plastics, we build and package everything with it. Burning building material up is a problem, and I think it’s important to consider that from a cold, hard economic viewpoint. I’d rather see a world where we use pebble-bed nuclear reactors, wind, and solar power for our transportation and power needs.

EG: What new technologies do you think have the potential for the greatest impact on the environment?

TB: The tough thing is that there is a great deal of power contained in oil, it’s efficient from that simple equation. And we’ve transitioned out of a human-powered world, where bondage and the price of life was cheap because calories were used to do things, to one where fuel powered machines run our world. And for all of the Western world’s faults, I’d take our fuel-powered world over a muscle powered world any day. Some third world countries offer a look at post-oil worlds that haven’t solved the power and machine problem, and they’re tough. Cuba, now bereft of Russia’s free oil, uses farm animals to pull buses around and a lot of manual labor.

Right now ethanol and biodiesel has a big buzz, but the issue there is that in order to harvest the amount of ethanol needed to run our country, we’d have to plant just absolutely enormous amounts of crops, it would have a tremendous effect on us to attempt this. Even our attempts to slightly up our ethanol usage are having impacts on the global crop market right now. I’ve seen some research about algae for biodiesel that looks promising, algae fields are more doable than soybeans and corn, one can grow that stuff in a wide range of locations. And while I like solar and wind, the problem there becomes storage and transmission. Solar and wind are variable power productions, and as a result, you can’t just hook them up to your grid willy nilly because of the fluctuations they bring, so you need batteries to store that power. And batteries use nasty heavy metals that are tough on the environment, so you then have that side effect.

So far the most intriguing vision I’ve seen for alternative power has been the AirCar. What this car does is use electricity to power a compressor that fills a tank with compressed air. That compressed air then powers a piston, much like steam does. The electricity to power that compressor is fairly cheap, and if the AirCar’s basic piston design gets as much power out of the compressed air as they’re saying it does, then compressed air generators are a complete alternative power change agent.

It’s a complete change agent because we already have the technology to easily store compressed air. Scuba tanks are no mystery, and the technology is easy to understand and use. It’ll also be easy to adapt our existing patterns to it. So you hook up tidal generators, wind generators, solar power farms, biodiesel generators, whatever, to power compressors that store air. Air generators tap into this resource to again create electricity to do whatever.

If consumers don’t want lighter cars, you invest in stronger air tanks to compress air better. It doesn’t pollute, anyone can tinker with the fuel storage and delivery mechanism, and I’m very interested in seeing if AirCar’s claims hold up. I like this low-tech solution because the biggest problems with pollution and fuel use are going to be the very hungry and always rapidly growing China and India. You can design super advanced tech solutions to these problems and beat the US consumer over the head with a message all you want, but in about a generation the combined forces of China and India will have more of an effect on the world than we will, and so the trick is to find solutions and methods that will work for their economies and people. An expensive fuel cell car or quarter of a million dollar green house isn’t going to do the trick, I don’t think.

EG: What environmental issues do you think are going to require technological intervention? Or, to put it a bit better perhaps, what environmental problems do you think *can* be remedied by technological intervention?

TB: People focus on cars, I think the big issue will be main electricity generation. Right now the bulk of US power generation comes from coal. It’s one reason why the US isn’t too threatened by gas issues when you think about. Sure we drive around on it, but most of our power generation comes from coal, and we have a 200 year supply of it. I’m not sure if peak oil theory is correct, but even if it happened, with transportation adjustments, the lights are still going to be on here in the US. But coal is pretty dirty, and even though GE has invested a ton of money in trying to clean up coal, but there’s some way to go yet, I believe. And, allow me a digression: here’s a sign of where things can and should be going: one of the largest investors in green technology research is GE. Although they’re not getting a ton of credit from environmentalists, their current leadership strongly believes green is the way of the future. The company has spread this EcoMagination movement throughout all aspects of their company. They’re one of the leading groups studying how to manage power fluctuation when hooking up alternate power sources to a main power grid, and I think they’re the largest wind turbine group now, it’s pretty interesting.

Okay, that aside, though, I still think energy independence for a country is a rational, patriotic thing to do. I think Denmark is one of the few countries aiming for this, and they’ve done a lot of neat things to try and get to that point. Besides the environmental reasons, I do think getting out of competing for power resources will get you out of some of the biggest conflicts that will come to a head in the next few generations.

EG: In Ragamuffin, you make brief mention of the orbital mirrors that were used to help terraform the planet Nanaganda. What do you think about proposals to do similar scale projects to adjust Earth’s climate?

TB: I don’t know. I think the idea of building giant carbon sinks to try and get at some of the carbon is an interesting idea, but that it might be smarter to just try and green things up with smart building design and outside space design. I hate seeing suburbs and giant parking lots. It doesn’t have to be that way. You can still have Wal-Mart, but encourage or mandate parking garages with trees on top and on top of the buildings, you know? Green matter is the best carbon sink we have going, I think natural resource management and smart planning works better than big engineering. I live in a small town with lots of trees, and it’s cool, shady, makes for good property values. Around the town are a couple developments. Bare lawn all the way. No trees. If the town can mandate that I can’t build a bright pink house with neon signs on it, why can’t they have tree edicts? A bare development is just as ugly to me.

EG: Who do you think is writing interesting things about environmental issues?

TB: Paulo Bacigalupi has written a series of stories for F&SF that dwell on a lot of these things, and I’m really enjoying them. He’s amazing.

EG: You grew up living in Grenada and the Caribbean for many years, and lived on a boat for some of that time. I’ve also read that much of your family was (and still is) involved in boats. [ed note: correct me if I'm getting any of my facts wrong here] How did this affect your writing? Do you think you have a different attitude about the environment because of that?

TB: Yeah, like I mentioned, it was living off the grid, and so I got a lot of those viewpoints, but without the sort of super green indoctrination. I never thought of myself particularly as an environmentalist, but we were there in the front lines of that sort of life that many environmentalists kind of dream about.

The other part is that at my time there people became a lot more aware of our impact on our surroundings. Originally boats just anchored wherever. But by the mid-80s or so, as a kid, we all learned that anchors had direct and sometimes irrevocable damage to reef systems. So we couldn’t anchor on reefs, but had to use preinstalled moorings. In the Virgin Islands, there were days when dust would fill the air and make it hazy, like L.A. hazy. Hell, we were on an island, what was it? It was dust picked up from the Sahara, borne by jetstream, and then deposited over the islands. It hit home that everything was interconnected, this world, and that if Saharans had poisoned that dust, we would have paid for it. That was profound. And then, later, we learned that one of the reasons some reefs were dying in the islands wasn’t man’s fault, but the fault of reef eating micro-organisms being carried from the Sahara to us in those storms. It’s a complex world!

That was where I got my gray look at this. Earlier we had been told reefs were dying off because of island chemicals and over snorkeling (You Fins is Causing Eco-Devestation! Which is actually slightly true) and so on. Turns out it was a combination of both bad anchoring, too much human interaction, and just nature’s fickleness.

EG: What piece of technology do you hope to see developed and widely available in the next 10-20 years?

TB: Pie in the sky is Nuclear Fusion. What I think is doable? I babbled on about the aircar, and I really am rooting for it. I think we could really do something cool with the air generator and aircar.

EG: What did you imagine the world would be like when you were a kid? Is it better or worse than your childhood fantasies?

TB: It’s far better. I know that’s a minority opinion, but here’s the thing. More people have access to clean water than before, or ever in history. There is less war now. There is more education, literacy, access to goods. That canard about most of Africa never having made a phone call? It’s actually not true. And a lot of them have cell phones, it’s a leap frog technology.

The problem is that we all have too much access to media, and that media can get our eyeballs by telling us something scary, and horrific. Blood leads, Blood sells. Anyone can get followers and eyeballs by saying the world is ending. It’s always been so. People who say ‘it’s not so bad, it’s getting better’ are trampled by people running over to listen to the dude in the camel shirt, long scraggly hair, and a placard saying it’s all over. I don’t think that this is done on purpose by the media, but because they need ratings to sell advertising money, they have to go with the story that gets your attention. And nothing gets our attention more than fear and doom. When I was a kid everyone worried about the nuclear apocalypse that Russia was sure to visit upon us, with millions/billions dying. Now everyone around me worries about terrorists killing thousands. Seems like a step forward, it’s just that we forget context.

Ten years ago as a teenager I visited my step-great grandmother in Florida. I noticed that as I walked into a room alone with her, she’d scurry out with what looked like fear on her face. I asked my stepdad what gave, and he said she’d spent twenty or thirty years in retirement, watching the TV news, venturing out very little, not at all for the last ten or so. She was scared I was going to rape her, or take her money, or beat her up, or kill her. Because thats what teenagers on the news did: commit acts of violence.

We’re all kind of like her, sitting in our rooms of reality created by what we see on TV. But the truth is that the world out there is getting better, and you can look at the stats and see that things are improving.

EcoGeek of the Week is a syndicated column from EcoGeek.org. If you are interested in publishing EcoGeek of the Week, please contact our chief editor at editor@ecogeek.org

Hi,
I’m considering purchasing a 2007 Mercedes Bluetec e320 Diesel. My question is "Is this car really green?"

My 04 Prius has 60k miles and is worse for wear and I’m too tall to comfortably drive it any longer. I can’t help but think the Bluetec is a step in reverse for me personally and that I really want to move forward with a Plug-in Hybrid or full EV, but no options exist. I’m tired of driving a constrictive tiny car built for the 95% of Japanese people, I’m not willing to accept a hybrid SUV, the notion is ridiculous. I want 50mpg+! and I want to stop BURNING fuel. What’s my next car?

Thanks! — Lex

Hey Lex,

Is the Mercedes Bluetec e320 Diesel green? Well, one thing’s for certain…it doesn’t feel as green as a Prius. Unfortunately, it’s hard to get both the green feeling and the headroom. Green cars aren’t small because they’re built for Japanese people, they’re small because to be efficient, cars need to be light, and present a low profile to the 70 mph winds that constantly buffet highway cars.

Of course, that’s one reason why diesels are an intriguing option. They may not seem green, but they do provide more power while producing less CO2. The e320 Diesel is a great car, and while you might not look green, you will look good while getting almost 40 mpg. The carbon savings are there, but, you’re absolutely right, it’s a step backwards from a Prius.

The real question is, what are the options for folks who want efficiency as well as comfort. Unfortunately, for a real choice, you’re going to have to go small or wait. I seriously would suggest halving your budget and going to your Honda and Toyota dealerships to check out the Fit, the Yaris, the Civic, the Altima and even the Corolla. These cars aren’t really built for the same markets as a $50,000 BluTec Benz, but while your friends might think you’re crazy, they won’t when you tell them how much you spend on gas.

If the second option, waiting, sounds more pleasant, then you might very well have some nice options coming down the pipe. The 2008 Prius will have a different body, so you might find it more comfortable than the ‘04. Additionally, the 2009 Prius might very well offer a plug-in version that will allow you realize your dream of not burning fuel anymore. At least until you hit 40 mph. Also, I should mention that the new body is absolutely beautiful.

Into the 2010s I promise you’ll start seeing vehicles that will not only burn less (or no) fuel, they will also have folks drooling at the sweetness of your style. Plug-in and hybrid options will start popping onto the market in all shapes and sizes and full EV cars might not be too far away.
I’m afraid those are your options. The ultra-efficient BluTec diesel engines allow for big beautiful cars to get pretty decent gas mileage. I understand wanting to lay your cash down there, if you’ve got it. But if you really want to look, feel and be green…go small…or wait.

Got a question for the EcoGeek? Use our submission form to send it to him.
Ask the EcoGeek is a syndicated column provided by EcoGeek.org. If you’re interested in syndicating this column, please contact our editor at editor@ecogeek.org.

Editor’s Note: In this week’s Ecogeek of the week, Hank Green interviews Ron Pernick, author of The Clean Tech Revolution.

Maybe my ears are just pointed in a very specific direction, but it seems rare when a day passes and I don’t hear someone extolling the possibilities of clean technology. But it’s not entirely clear what clean technology encompasses and how this very broad new category of technology is going to benefit our world in the coming decades.

I honestly don’t know…but Ron Pernick does. Ron is the head of the leading clean tech research firm, Clean Edge. His experiences at Clean Edge working with experts from industries ranging from carbon composites to water filtration has made him a leading clean technology expert, and uniquely qualified to write a book entitled “The Clean Tech Revolution.”

We’re very happy to have Ron Pernick as our EcoGeek of the Week.
EcoGeek: The work that Clean Edge does seems extremely important, even though I don’t really have any idea what you do there. Can you tell us about Clean Edge and your work?

Ron Pernick: We do a lot of interesting things at Clean Edge to track and analyze the development of clean technologies. This includes our annual Clean-Tech Investor Summit which we coproduce with IBF; the NASDAQ Clean Edge U.S. index which is a benchmark index tracking U.S.-listed clean energy companies; the publishing of our web site at www.cleanedge.com and our monthly newsletter CLEANWATCH; and a range of research reports including our annual Clean Energy Trends series. We also provide clean-tech related consulting services to investment firms, corporations, start ups, governments, and foundations. Since 2001 our clients have included such organization as Sharp, California Energy Commission, the City of San Francisco, the Solar Catalyst Group, Nth Power, Solaria, Solaicx, Miasole, and the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund.

EG: How do you draw a box around clean tech? It seems to be a category that can includes facets of every industry. So what is clean tech, and how do you know what not to include?

RP: We’re pretty explicit in the book. We define clean technologies as those technologies that reduce or eliminate the need for fossil fuels or limited natural resources; significantly reduce emissions and/or pollutants, and are equivalent or superior to conventional offerings. We group clean technologies into four buckets: energy, transportation, water, and materials. This covers everything from solar power, wind power, and biofuels to advanced lithium ion batteries, plug-in hybrids, and the smart grid.
Two technologies that we don’t consider clean are nuclear and “clean coal.” We spend time in the book explaining why – but with current technology we find the concept of clean coal oxymoronic and we believe that nuclear, with containment, waste, and proliferation issues, doesn’t fit our criteria of reducing waste/pollutants and that it’s just too costly to develop and deploy new nuclear power plants – especially in the United States . As Amory Lovins likes to say reviving the nuclear industry is like trying to defibrillate a corpse.

EG: Your recent book, The Clean Tech Revolution, is somewhat rare in “environmental” non-fiction in that it was entirely solution oriented and dealt very little with the crises we face. We try to have that same attitude at EcoGeek, and I think it makes us happier people. So, needless to say I loved it, but I’m curious why you needed to write it, and what your personal goals are for the book.

RP: We had to do it exactly for the reason that you point out. Nobody had written the business case for clean technologies – and so we set out to do that in a general business book with broad appeal that shined a light not only on the issues but on the solutions.
When we started Clean Edge back in 2001 the concept of clean technology wasn’t on the radar screen of the investment, business, or policy communities. If you did a Google search on the term you’d get just a handful of returns. Today, that same search would yield approximately 1 million results.

So the book’s goal is to paint a picture of how clean tech is shaping up globally and how individuals, businesses, and others can participate.
At the very beginning of the book we use a quote from Thomas Edison in which he says: “I found out what the world needs, then I proceed to invent.” I think that quote helps explain our positive approach to the big issues facing us. I’d rather spend time working on solutions than being paralyzed by impending doom and gloom. We owe it to our collective children (on a personal note my wife and I just had twins) and to future generations to try to figure a way out of today’s challenges of volatile fossil fuel supplies, natural resource constraints, climate change, and the needs of a growing global population.

EG: Revolution is a big word that is a lot of fun to use, often poorly. How do I know that we’re really dealing with a revolution here? What should I be expecting to see revolutionized?

RP: OK, you got us there — revolution is an overused term. But in the case of clean-tech development I do believe that we are experiencing a major shift that is both evolutionary and revolutionary. We call it a revolution because the timing is finally right for the mass emergence of these technologies.
For example, I wanted to get involved in clean energy when I first graduated from University in 1985 – but the timing wasn’t really right. The technologies weren’t mature, the capital markets weren’t behind it, governments weren’t really demanding it at a large scale.

Indeed – clean energy was still “alternative.” It was the domain of Birkenstock-wearing, granola-eating, back-to-the-earth zealots (in full disclosure I ate granola this morning for breakfast and I love wearing my Birkenstocks).
But that’s all changed today. It’s becoming the domain of Wall Street and Main Street. When GE is reporting more than $12 billion last year in revenues from its “Ecomagination” products and services, Toyota has shipped more than 1 million hybrid vehicles, Goldman Sachs is investing billions in clean energy, Denmark is getting around twenty percent of its electricity from wind power, and governments around the globe are competing for their piece of the clean-tech prize – you know things have changed.

Indeed, part of our definition of revolution is that you can not only change the world but make money doing it. That’s what we’re finally seeing today – and it’s a critical piece of the puzzle. MBA grads, engineers, marketers, and others – in Asia, North America, and Europe — are now finding that they can support their families and help develop and deploy next-generation, clean, efficient technologies. They don’t have to wait fifteen years like I did. Now there’s something revolutionary about that!

EG: Some of the subjects in your book (solar, wind, automobiles) are pretty straightforward clean tech industries. But others, like mobile technology and water purification, are less obviously connected to the environment. Can you talk a bit about why you include these subjects in your book?

RP: Our focus isn’t really on the environment per se. It’s on a host of challenges facing the planet from population growth to volatile natural resource supplies. The environment, in particular global warming/climate change, is just one of multiple drivers. In the book we highlight the 6 Cs — a confluence of forces that are driving clean-tech development.
Under this framework everything from water filtration to mobile technology to advanced transportation makes sense.
For example, how will the world supply clean water as water tables are depleted and more people move to areas without sufficient water supplies? There are 2 billion people without access to reliable potable water – and this contributes to massive illness and death. It’s a huge issue that will require new forms of energy-efficient or renewable-energy powered desalination, water conservation technologies, new on-site water filtration, etc.

EG: I think it’s pretty likely we’re going to be surprised a lot in the next couple decades. It’s a bit mean to ask where I should be expecting the unexpected, but I’m curious if you have any thoughts on where those world-changing clean tech surprises may come from?

RP: I believe we will see both incremental advancements in technology as well as disruptive breakthroughs. I think one of the most important things is that we push the boundaries on both incremental and disruptive changes at the same time.
So, for example, how could we make today’s grid more like the Internet – with built in redundancy, two way flow of information and electrons, the ability for people to be both energy consumers and producers? That shift is already underway – but it will require new breakthroughs in energy storage devices, net metering, grid interconnect, etc.

In the book we highlight breakthrough opportunities in each of the eight technology chapters. Some are more obvious and others are more out there – like the possibility that we might be able to cost effectively capture water from the air in remote locations.
So I believe our book highlights many of the surprises you ask about – but our focus was definitely on the near- to mid-term – in other words over the next 3-10 years. Beyond that, truly, is anybody’s guess…

EG: A lot of people I talk to feel that a great deal of good could be accomplished if only economies were more local. This is discussed a bit in The Clean Tech Revolution, but I’m curious what technologies might enable a shift toward local economies and how that might affect our world.

RP: Biofuels are a great example of how you might apply a regional approach to clean-tech development. In fact, there’s likely to be a battle in the marketplace between locally harvested and distilled fuels and biofuels produced in places like the Midwest or Brazil.
There’s certainly a great opportunity for local biofuels production and it does make a lot of sense in some regions. A number of folks are looking at closed-loop systems in which you take the cow manure from a feedlot and gasify it to provide energy to a distillery. You then produce biofuels with locally harvested crops and you sell the biofuels to regional communities (say in a 100 mile radius) and you feed the distiller’s grain (a coproduct of ethanol manufacturing) to the same cows whose poop is powering your plant. It’s an elegant scenario and one that should be pursued.

But I’m a big supporter of both regional and global solutions. So I believe we’re likely to see both taking shape simultaneously with markets and policies impacting how things play out. There’s the old saying: “think globally, act locally.” I’m of the belief that we should think globally and locally, and act in both.

EG: What scares your pants off?

RP: Well, like many people, I’m scared of major collapses – whether that happens from a technological meltdown like a nuclear accident, environmental destruction like climate change, or regional/global terrorism or war. Generally, though, I’m an optimist and don’t like to dwell too much on a “sky is falling” mentality. I consider myself a pragmatic optimist — which means I look for where there are problems and try to uncover solutions. I also always prefer diplomacy and open dialogue over unilateralism and radicalism.
Personally, I’m scared from the usual stuff – public speaking, car crashes, my own mortality, that sort of thing. But I try to be comfortable in my own skin and keep a smile on my face.

EG: The Clean Tech Revolution is an extremely hopeful book. If Climate Change gives you lemons…I suppose you should just, well, make 60 billion dollars a year. What keeps you hopeful in the face of the various apocalyptic crises we’re facing?

RP: Perhaps it’s genetic. Or how I was raised… Two messages that I remember hearing clearly from my parents as a young child is that I could be anything I wanted to be (though I think they harbored hopes I’d be a doctor) and that it was alright to cry. Maybe these sweet messages somehow gave me my sunny disposition.

EG: I notice you use the word “Investment” in your subtitle. I’m taking that as an invitation to ask you what I should do with my billions of dollars after EcoGeek.org’s IPO.

RP: Well, I assumed from your URL that you were a non profit – but I see that I was wrong. So in the event that you do cash out and join the ranks of billionaires – I recommend looking at your own web site for guidance on how to spend that wad of cash. I love what you say, that “Technology can be a force for evil, or for awesome.” Hopefully you’ll use your money to push the boundaries on “awesome.”

EcoGeek of the Week is a syndicated column provided by EcoGeek.org. If you are interested in publishing this column, or participating in the series, please email our editor at editor@ecogeek.org.This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

Dear Mr. EcoGeek,

I've heard that it takes more energy to produce photovoltaic cells than the cells will ever produce throughout their lifetime. Is there any truth to that, or are those naysayers just saying nay?

David
Spokane, WA

Short Answer:

Those naysayers are just saying nay! But that doesn't mean there's not more to this story.

Long Answer:

This myth was probably perpetuated by studying solar panels created for NASA. If you need something extremely efficient for use in outer space, yes, then it doesn't matter how much energy you use to create the panel. But for use here on Earth, it's ridiculous for anyone to say that solar panels consume more energy than they produce.

Of course, doing anything in this world takes energy. Whether it's building power lines or shipping oil from Saudi Arabia, it takes energy to make energy usable. In fact, there's a nifty number that puts all of this into perspective. It's called the “energy balance”, and it is, in short, the amount of energy you get out divided by the energy you put in.

So, for corn ethanol, for example, we get 1.3 units of energy for every 1 unit we put in, so its energy balance is 1.3. Whereas for Brazilian sugar cane ethanol, we get 8 units of energy for every one we put in. As for gasoline, its energy balance is about 5.

So what does this have to do with solar? It is a bit incorrect to apply energy balance to solar panels, because they don't actually contain the energy, so it's not something that I've ever actually seen done. But I think it makes sense to fudge it a bit in light of your question.

Data from a study (pdf) from Energy Environment and Economics Inc. showed that the average solar panel gets five times more energy out than was originally put in. Roughly the same “energy balance” as gasoline.

Still, no one is satisfied with that number.

Thousands of scientists, engineers and business people are working, right now, to increase solar's energy balance, and many have done it substantially. The simplest and most common methods include making sure that the panels are always at a 90 degree angle to the sun, increasing the life of the panels, and decreasing the amount of photovoltaic (PV) material needed in the panels.

As PV material (usually polysilicon) is energy intensive to create, a lot of folks are trying to figure out how to use less of it. One common method is to use mirrors or lenses to concentrate the sunlight on a relatively small amount of polysilicon material. Additionally, a whole other branch of the solar industry is trying to make solar panels from less energy-intensive materials, including the much-touted copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) thin-film solar panels.

There may be some economic reason to not be an early adopter of solar, but there is certainly no doubt that they produce a lot more energy than they consume. And soon, they'll be producing even more.

Got a question for the EcoGeek? Use our submission form to send it to him.

Ask the EcoGeek is a syndicated weekly column from EcoGeek.org. If you are interested in syndicating Ask the EcoGeek, please contact us at editor@ecogeek.org

Editor's note: We're particularly excited about this week's "EcoGeek of the Week," as EcoGeek.org's Matt James interviews author and thinker Daniel Quinn. If you haven't read Ishmael, put it on your reading list… and be prepared to see the world differently once you've finished it.

Daniel Quinn, I think, is more a thinker than a writer. His ideas are what change the world, his books are merely attempts to explain his somewhat unique worldview.

In his most famous work, Ishmael, and throughout his other works, both fiction and non, his ideas repeat: the need to examine the cultural myths which we are steeped in from birth, the necessity of adopting new ways of thinking in order to change our behavior, and the drastic differences both in form and functionality between "civilization" and those we term "uncivilized".

While his way of thinking may seem odd at first, Quinn's ideas are extremely rational and widely acclaimed. His work has been translated numerous times, and is assigned reading for anthropology students, business majors, and students of biology, ethics, ecology, and history worldwide. Quinn's broad, sweeping documentation of our society's ills are never without hope for the future, and though he's a bit reluctant to bear the title of "EcoGeek", we're thrilled to welcome him that way, as EcoGeek of the Week.

EcoGeek: In many of your books, you tackle the subjects of sustainability and the environment, but from a perspective that may seem odd to many environmentalists. It seems you are not the typical "tree hugger"…

Daniel Quinn: I don't consider myself an environmentalist. I feel that the category itself is badly conceived, dividing the world into people who are "for the environment" and people who are "for people," which is nonsense. Thus it came to be seen that "environmentalists" were "for" the spotted owl, while non-environmentalists were seen to be "for" forestry jobs that would be lost by saving the spotted owl. The term "environmentalism" emphasizes a false division between "us" and "it" — "it" being the environment. There is no "it" out there. We are all in this together. There are no two sides. We cannot survive as a species somehow separate from the rest of the living community.

EG: A lot of people are worried about a lot of different things right now. What scares your pants off?

DQ: It seems to me that your question is: "What's gonna get us first?" I'll let others conjecture about that. I know that there's going to be an end to fossil fuel, and when it comes, we'd better have in place a petroleum-free way of feeding ourselves or it's going to get real ugly around here. That scares the pants off me (though I won't be here to go through it.)

EG: It does seem we are headed for certain disaster if we keep living the way we do now. What gives you hope for the future?

DQ: Only the prospect of worldwide mind-change gives me hope for the future. It has happened before, in the Renaissance. It happened in the Soviet Union, bringing about its collapse. It can happen again, and it must — or indeed we are doomed. What gives me hope is the fact that the curve of awareness as measured by the number of books published and read on the subject has risen steadily. I (and a relatively small number of others) have AS YET been unable to shake the commonly held Malthusian vision of the relation between population growth and food production. So it continues to be seen that it is completely inevitable that our population must continue to grow to 8 billion, 10 billion, 12 billion. If this happens, I'm afraid I see no hope for our species. The world's biologists now concur that we have entered a period of mass extinction as great as any such period of the past. Sustaining 6.5 billion of us costs the world as many as 75, 100, or 200 species a day (the United Nations recently offered the lowest of these estimates). Eventually, the ecological structures that sustain human life will collapse if this continues. This disastrous trend (which will grow worse as our population grows) is reversible; but only if people in general come to understand that it MUST be reversed, for the sake of our own survival.

EG: No organism (to my knowledge) has ever intentionally decreased or halted it's population growth. Is this actually possible, or are we reduced to hoping for a minor apocalypse now, in order to avoid a major one later?

DQ: It is indeed possible. Malthus imagined that our food production increases whenever our population increases. The point I've been at pains to make is that, like all other species, our population increases whenever whenever we increase food production. Food production is under our control; if we cease increasing food production, then our population will of necessity cease to grow. If x amount of food is needed to sustain a population of 6.5 billion of us, then that population can't grow to 10 billion if we continue to produce only x amount of food. People are made of food and nothing else. You can't make them out of moonlight.

EG: You've often stated that it's not a new technology or "program" that will sustain humanity into the next century, but rather a massive sea change in the way that we think and live. What strategy do you use when trying to win over people who don't see any advantage to changing?

DQ: I have no strategy for such a thing. I don't know how to make the blind see.

EG: Regardless of what you may think, many of us have found your work to be eye-opening. When do you think the tipping point for environmental consciousness, for sustainable living, will be reached? When will it become mainstream to "save the world"?

DQ: What I've said is that if there are still people here in 200 years, they won't be living the way we do, because if people go on living the way we do, then there will be no people here in 200 years. If there are still people here in 200 years, they won't be thinking the way we do, because if people go on thinking the way we do, then they will go on living the way we do? and there will be no people here in 200 years. You could probably cut that down to 100 years. I would say that the tipping point is probably going to have to occur in the next 25 to 50 years? more likely 25 than 50.

EG: Since you stress mind-change so heavily as an element of future survival, can you point to a single change that seems to you key?

DQ: One idea that survived the middle ages, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment to flourish into the present age is this: that humans belong to an order of being that is separate from (and higher than) the rest of the living community. This is, to my mind, the most dangerous idea extant today, and it's literally going to kill us if we don't get rid of it. Earthworms are more important to the life of this planet than humans are, and if earthworms disappear, we humans will follow very soon after. It's vital that we get it into our heads that we are members of a community and dependent on that community the same way every other member is. We cannot exist apart from it. We don't "own" that community. We aren't custodians of it (it takes care of itself and did so successfully for billions of years before our appearance). We need it, absolutely and forever; it doesn't need us. If there are still people here in 200 years, they will know this without the slightest doubt.

EG: Changing the subject a little bit, how do phenomena like Apple's iPhone fit into, as you put it, our "culture of maximum harm"? I can't help but want one, yet there's some part of me that knows I don't *need* it.

DQ: I'd say that Apple's iPhone fits into our culture of maximum harm by reassuring us that everything is just getting better and better and better and better, when in fact we are teetering on the brink of catastrophe. That doesn't make the iPhone especially pernicious, however. It's just one of the annual output of attractive toys that keep us smiling while we teeter.

EG: In your latest book, If They Give You Lined Paper, Write Sideways, you talk about your unique perspective, and refer to it as that of a "Martian anthropologist". Could you explain for our readers what you mean by that?

DQ: Everything we do - all the institutions we create and support - make perfect sense to us. We are trained from infancy to believe, for example, that passing laws against activities we don't want to happen somehow "works" (even though we know that those laws will ABSOLUTELY continue to be broken). We are trained from infancy to believe that putting law-breakers into prison somehow "works" (even though we know that those laws will ABSOLUTELY continue to be broken). We are trained from infancy to believe that schooling is somehow "nature's way" (perhaps even God's ordained way) of educating children, even though it is endlessly demonstrated that the schools do a sickeningly poor job of educating our children, despite the billions (or is it trillions?) that we spend on them. The Martian anthropologist - that is, the anthropologist who comes from that planet for the purpose of studying us - is not trained to see things in these ways, and so looks at us and wonders how it came to be that we believe such odd things. That's been my role here.

EG: It seems like there are a large number of people who agree with you, but few who think like you. How do you explain the disparity? Was this new book an attempt to help others begin answering their own questions?

DQ: Believe me, I was surprised by the disparity when it became evident, as book followed book. It eventually became clear to me that I DO have a weird way of looking at things that others can't automatically pick up on. Lined Paper is designed to analyze my "method" (as far as it can be analyzed) and to help others adopt that method.

EG: What's the best part of your job? How do you renew yourself when you're feeling burnt out?

DQ: The best part of my job is seeing some new angle of attack to bringing my message home. You might say that each of my books represents a different angle of attack — and that includes "straight" novels like After Dachau and The Holy. Having finished Lined Paper, I am, for the moment, without a new direction: written out, rather than burnt out.

—

I'm sure we're not the only ones eagerly awaiting Daniel Quinn's next inspiration. You can check out his most recent book, If They Give You Lined Paper, Write Sideways at your local book store. If you're looking for more, be sure to check out Ishmael.org for the latest updates and thoughts; the comprehensive Q&A section gives a deeper look into Daniel Quinn's way of thinking, and there are also many compelling short stories and parables.

EcoGeek of the Week is a syndicated column from EcoGeek.org. If you are interested in publishing EcoGeek of the Week, please contact our chief editor at editor@ecogeek.org

Instead of solar and wind power to supply to your own house - which are both weather dependent - has anyone thought about systems that might require some actual work, but provide a usable amount of power?

I was thinking, what if each member of my family carried a 40lb bag up 3 floors and hung it on a hook that was connected to a generator; would an effort like that actually provide a significant amount of energy? Just a thought.

Regards,

Jens, London

Oh Jens…you don't even know what you've done! Your question is totally a word problem from a physics exam. And as much as this will likely frighten most people reading this, I'm going to treat it as such.

If 120 lbs is lifted thirty feet and then allowed them to drop slowly over twelve hours, how much energy will be produced?

120 lbs * 30 ft = 3600 ft/lbs = 4880 joules = 1.356 watt hours / 12 hours = 0.113 watts.

So, in answer to your question, no, that would not provide a significant amount of electricity. In fact, in order to power one 60 watt equivalent CFL for twelve hours, each member of your family would have to march up the stairs about ten times.

But that doesn't mean that you don't have an excellent point. Every person is a magical little energy factory. Whataburgers go in…watt hours come out, and it is possible to harness that energy.

Some schemes in converting muscle power to electric power even seem pretty intelligent. A gym in Hong Kong has hooked its treadmills to a battery bank, using the energy of its clients to power the lights. A subway in Japan harnesses the energy used by people walking through turnstiles to power lights. And we've all seen various gadgets that can be shaken, squeezed, cranked or yanked to generate the juice that makes them work.

But a more personal and powerful option for a muscle-powered home is a pedal generator. Basically, it's just your average exercise bike, except there's a generator on the inside. The maximum output for a toned adult would be about 500 watts, but a sustainable level for someone like me (who's eaten his share of Whataburgers) is more like 150 watts. Amazingly, this would be enough to power both of my laptops, two CFL light bulbs and my cell phone charger for as long as I kept pedaling.

There are two problems though. First, no one can pedal forever. And second, they're not yet selling pedal generators at your local hardware store. But if you can get your hands on one, like the $230 pedal-a-watt bike-to-generator conversion kit, you could easily lower your electric bills, or charge an emergency backup battery, and become a healthier EcoGeek at the same time.

Ask the EcoGeek is a column provided by EcoGeek.org. If you've got a clean technology question for the ecogeek, you can send it to him through our form.

Editor's note: EcoGeek.org's "EcoGeek of the Week" interview series is a relatively new feature over there, but we've been impressed with the subjects they lined up. When Head EcoGeek Hank Green asked us if we'd like to run the feature, we happily obliged."EcoGeek of the Week" appears every Tuesday at EcoGeek.org… and now also at Green Options.

Just because I love the actual world doesn't mean I'm not a pretty big fan of virtual worlds as well. Some have said that actively seeking out fake worlds to explore and enjoy is be a symptom of alienation from or even disdain for the environment. But I can't help but feel that's absolute crap.

And today I've got someone who very likely agrees with me, and he happens to be one of the biggest gamers in the world. Scott Cronce is the Chief Technology Officer of Electronic Arts. Scott's worked on dozens of video games over the last two decades and when I noticed his name pop up on the EcoGeek mailing list (don't you want to join too) I had to get in touch with him.

I was excited to learn that he's an even bigger EcoGeek than I am, and was happy to oblige us with an interview.

EcoGeek: CTO of Electronic Arts eh? That sounds a lot like "Head of Video Games for the Entire World." What are your responsibilities with EA?

Scott Cronce: This October I’ll celebrate my 19th anniversary at Electronic Arts. In 1988 I joined EA as a Technical Director for the simulations group were I was very fortunate to work on many types of games from military simulations to a little group of games we now call EA Sports. Over the years my responsibilities grew from project level to company level technology management. During console transitions I also have the extra fun of heading up our engineering efforts on new game machines. As EA grew I had ‘title creep’ to the point where it would no longer fit on a standard business card without multiple abbreviations.

EG: Do you think there's an interplay between the virtual worlds of gaming and the actual world of environmentalism.

SC: As a game play mechanic, of course there is. Just like in the real word, the virtual world is made up of resources to manage. A game designer can use elements of adverse environmental effects to balance out game play.

EG: When and how did you end up as an EcoGeek?

SC: It was mainly by accident but was accelerated by the California Energy crisis. My interests in the latest and greatest technology long ago earned me the title of ‘alpha geek’. For example, I ordered my Segway off Amazon the day they went on sale. At the time I didn’t consider it an Eco purchase, just a really cool toy. I have a strange desire to constantly beta test anything electronic, much to my wife’s dismay. I live in California and we went through a period huge increases in our energy bills. All those gadgets were starting to cost me upwards of $800 a month. Before that I never really paid much attention to my energy usage. I wasn’t about to stop using all those cool toys, it just meant I had another problem that I was sure could be solved by technology. I think it’s very natural progression for people to go from gadget geek to EcoGeek.

EG: Do you have any personal environmental achievements that you think are particularly awesome.

SC: I think I got a little obsessed with my electricity usage. I filled up my roof top with 56-220w solar panels. It finally dawned on me how big the system was when my Solar company put pictures of the array on their website in industrial section. I guess I went a little overboard. We then changed out our gas components to electric and swapped out all our incandesce lights for compact fluorescent. I was amazed how high tech they had become, I could even get dimmable ones! Next came the electric scooter, what a great way to get around town. Not satisfied with my new electric hobby, I hunted for an electric car that I could use for my 45 mile round trip commute. I found a 1995 U.S. Electricar (basically a Geo) that had just enough range to get me to work. After a 10hr charge I was ready to drive it back home again. It was fun but not that practical. I was then lucky enough to find a 2002 Toyota RAV4 EV. Now that’s a real electric car. With its 120 mile range It not only became my daily computer but my main car. My wife liked it so much that I found another one for her. We still have our gas car as backup but rarely need to use it. I haven’t needed to by gas since last December. It’s really a shame that consumers can’t walk into a dealership today and buy an EV. Maybe companies like Tesla Motors will change that.

EG: Do you think EA might get in on the current environmental craze in any way?

SC: There are many more people like myself at EA. I think you’d be surprised to see how many hybrids are in our parking lots and how many employees are environmentally active. As a corporation we have always been very environmentally conscious. Our games are pure entertainment. We have had many games were some environmental element to them but we haven’t made one entirely themed on the environment. Maybe in today’s heightened awareness we’ll have more opportunities to do more.

EG: What makes you hopeful for our world's environmental future?

SC: We have a history of reversing and rectifying problems we have caused to the environment so I see no reason why we won’t continue. What gives me extra hope today is the extent of investment I’m now seeing put into green technologies. That means there is actual money to be made. We are going to see big boom in new ideas and technologies over the next few years.

EG: What do you think are the best ideas and innovations we've got to save the world.

SC: That’s a hard one. I’ll stay away from miracle inventions and instead just deploy the ones we already know work. To start with I’d like to see all new construction use solar (like thin film shingles). We could drastically cut down energy costs for the average home owner while eliminating the need to build new power plants. I’d like to see us bring back the plug in electric car. We have thousands of homemade plug in hybrids now, sure would be great if a consumer could buy a new one. Nonprofit organizations like www.pluginamerica.com are staring to make some headway, I just wish auto manufactures along with local and federal government agencies would help.

Dear EcoGeek,

Is it possible to recycle old CD's or DVD's?

Thanks,
Rob

The perpetual scourge of EcoGeekiness is obsolescence. We pay good money for what we see as a good product, and then five years down the line we're surrounded by useless junk!

But I can't help but answer this seemingly straightforward question with several different answers.

First, I'll actually answer the question:

Yes, you can, but it's not as simple as curbside pickup. CDs and DVDs do contain valuable materials (CDRs even sometimes contain gold) and there are techniques to harvest that material for reuse, but those same materials make them too complicated for regular recycling centers. Unfortunately, the materials aren't expensive enough that someone will pay for them. To recycle CDs you'll have to ship them to a special recycling center. Several are listed at the bottom of this post.

Second, Destroy the Data

Whenever you're trashing something that might contain personal data, always take the time to wipe it clean. For CDs, this can be accomplished with gloved hands, scissors, a hole puncher or, for a more entertaining (and dangerous) destruction, microwave on high for two seconds.

Third, Dubious Re-Use:

The internet is littered with cheesy ways to reuse old CDs. Give people lemons and they'll make coasters, disco balls, clocks and maybe even miniature hover-craft. However, this isn't really helping anyone. At the very least, it's delaying the landfill for another few years. It's fun to play with trash, but this kind of re-use doesn't make much environmental sense.

Forth, Stop the Cycle

As with any article about obsolete materials, we'd be fools not to mention how evil forced obsolescence is. The good news is, nowadays we don't need to buy physical objects anymore. We can download pretty much everything we need straight to our hard drive, consume it, and throw it into the virtual trash can on our desktop. Whenever you can, go digital. But avoid the temptation to burn all your files to DVD. You'll just be staring at them in five years wondering what the heck you're going to do with all those coasters.

CD Recycling Services in the US

NESAR Systems
420 Ashwood Road
Darlington, PA 16115
724-827-8172

Digital Audio Disk Corporation
Attention: Disc Recycling Program
1800 Fruitridge Avenue
Terre Haute, IN 47804-1788
812-462-8323

And in the UK

The Laundry CD Recycling
Lauren Dean
London Recycling
4d North Crescent
Cody Road
London
E16 4TG

Ask the EcoGeek is a column provided by EcoGeek.org. If you've got a clean technology question for the ecogeek, you can send it to him through our form.

Dear EcoGeek,

I did a survey and I have 33 recessed bulbs in the house (120W)! I've switched all my non-recessed bulbs with CFLs, but I need something for our recessed lighting.

Thanks,

David

David,

Thirty three 120 watt bulbs will keep your house competing with a small star for both power consumption and light intensity, but I'm not here to judge. If you've got the sockets, they should have high-efficiency bulbs in them.

The good news is two-fold. First, you don't have to wait for LED bulbs to show up at Wal-Mart to find a high efficiency alternative because they've started selling excellent recessed CFLs. I've actually got one shooting down on me right now! To match a 120 watt incandescent, you should look for a 23 to 26 watt CFL.

The bad news is that LED bulbs would likely be a better choice for you, but a good one won't be easy to find. LED lighting is facing a few barriers that will take some time to overcome. First, LEDs are currently fairly expensive to manufacture, and while their extreme long life and efficiency will eventually pay for the extra cost, it's hard to get folks to cough up 30 bucks for a bulb when they're so used to paying 30 cents. You might be able to find a good one somewhere like Ace Hardware or specialty stores online, but be ready to cough up some change.

Second, LEDs have a very high theoretical efficiency, but that doesn't mean they're all created equal. While incandescents and fluorescents have had all their kinks worked out, the materials that will go into creating LED bulbs haven't been settled yet. Engineers at GE, Philips and elsewhere are all slaving away trying to get the maximum light out of the least amount of power without sacrificing the quality of the light…all while decreasing costs.

But I guarantee you it'll be worth the wait. LEDs promise huge energy savings, high quality light, instant turn-on, and long-term lifespans while containing absolutely no toxic chemicals. What's my estimate for a $5-$10 120 watt equivalent LED bulb at Wal-Mart? Five years. Which, luckily, is right around when your CFLs will start burning out!

Got a question about green technology for Hank Green, publisher of EcoGeek.org? Use our form to submit it to him. And check back on Thursdays for further installments of "Ask the EcoGeek."

Editor's note: Yesterday, we discovered that both Green Options and EcoGeek have representatives visiting WindPower 2007, the American Wind Energy Association's annual convention and trade show. In order to give readers of both sites a wide range of coverage, we decided to join efforts and share our posts. This first one comes from EcoGeek writer Ransom Riggs, and was published earlier today.

Day one of the Windpower 2007 conference has come to an end, and having just rubbed elbows with something like 6,000 attendees, 400-plus exhibitors and national legislators and policymakers from around the country, I thought I'd try to make sense of it all. The confab was put on by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), and heavily attended by many of folk who belong to it: wind energy producers, manufacturers who produce things like wind turbines, poles, and transmission lines and wind outreach and education organizations. The conference features tons of panels, discussions and presentations, but much of the talk at this year's Windpower focused on just a few issues:

• A lot of people -­ and not just wind industry representatives, either ­- believe that wind energy is and will remain an increasingly crucial part of our national renewable energy portfolio. No one had anything particularly negative to say about nuclear or other non-c02-emitting power generation technologies, but all agreed that of those other options, none were as ready as wind power was to step up to the plate and work. (It takes years and years to bring a nuclear power plant online, for instance, and not nearly as long to build and permit wind turbines). The wind industry feels that its golden moment is now.
• The AWEA has set a really tough goal for itself and for the wind industry: to produce 20% of the U.S.' power by the year 2020. As good as that sounds, no one really knows how it's going to be accomplished. Panelist Bob Lukefahr, of BP's alternative fuels division, stressed the challenges: It will require "technology we haven't invented yet," he said, and entails "political and economic complexity this business has never faced before." For starters, they're going to have to figure out how to deliver all that energy; even if we had the turbines to do it right now, it would cost at least $60 billion to build the transmission lines to get that power onto the country's grid, according to AWEA President Randall Swisher.
• The future of the wind industry depends on the White House, and if the next few presidents we have aren't wind-friendly, wind will stay small for the long haul.

The good news is, there are plenty of states out there interested in having the wind industry set up shop in their regions. At Monday's confab alone, the mayor of Los Angeles and the governors of Montana and Iowa made nice to the assembled windustryites, and at least one congressman (D.C.'s own Jerry McNerney) and a senator (Tom Daschle) lent their support to the cause as a whole. In short, the industry is booming, consumer interest in renewable energy has never been higher, and the future ­ depending in part on what happens in the 2008 election ­ looks bright.