Green Options

The oceans seem like a great potential source for clean energy. The force of the waves, the constancy, the size of the oceans — it all seems like something that could produce energy for humans without much harm. (I still have some concerns, though it seems like one of the best options these days). Some of the major problems with utilizing the force of the oceans, however, have been how to survive storms, the need to be anchored to the see floor, and efficiency.

Researchers from the US Air Force Academy have a new, outside-the-box idea for dealing with these problems — use an aerospace approach.

This is yet to be developed to full-scale and tested in that form, but early computer and model-scale tests are showing higher efficiencies than wind turbines, according to the National Science Foundation (NSF).

The National Science Foundation has just awarded researchers at UC San Diego a $1million grant to develop small robotic devices that will drift with the ocean currents to study the mechanisms that support plankton and other tiny marine creatures.  Swarms of the autonomous underwater explorers (AUE’s) could provide a window into the underlying factors that drive broader ocean processes, by more precisely focusing on localized data on currents, temperature, salinity, pressure, and other properties.

The robots could also some day patrol and monitor protected marine areas, provide early warnings of potential hazards such as algae blooms and oil spills, and even scout out plane crashes and other ocean-going emergencies.  Depending on how the devices are powered, the robot swarms could also provide a more sustainable means of accomplishing oceanic research compared to the use of ships and other fossil fuel-powered equipment.

Researchers at the University of San Diego have discovered that carbon nanotubes don’t have to be perfect to do a better job.  The team of UCSD Professor Prabhakar Bandaru and grad student Mark Hoefer found that defective carbon nanotubes actually store energy more effectively than their unflawed counterparts.

The effect, which was originally studied at UCSD by grad student Jeff Nichols, rests in the creation of just the right amount of defects - enough to create additional charge sites on the nanotube, but not enough to break down its electrical conductivity.  Though it’s a long way from commercialization, the breakthrough brings us one step closer to the Holy Grail of the electric car, and to the entire battery operated sustainable infrastructure of the future: a genuine quick-charging, long lasting battery.

Asia is investing hundreds of billions of dollars more than the US in clean technology, according to a new report by two research institutions. In the future, the US may be importing trillions of dollars of needed clean technology (and losing countless jobs to Asia) as a result.

In total, the report showed that China, Japan, and South Korea will invest about $509 billion in clean tech over the next 5 years, whereas the US (with our greenest President in decades, maybe ever) is only expected to invest $172 billion (about 3 times less) — this is assuming the climate and energy legislation in Congress passes.

If the US were to invest the same percentage of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as South Korea, it would invest almost $140 billion per year ($700 billion over this five year period)! Compared to China, the anticipated per-GDP investment ratio is 1:4 (US to China).

In 2008, Japan almost matched US R&D spending on energy and achieved almost the same number of international clean energy patents despite having dramatically lower GDP.

The financial investment is not the only thing giving these countries a major advantage in this field, though.

I had the pleasure of being the guest on a (the?) twitter #SmallBizChat last night.  The brain child of up and coming small biz powerhouse Melinda Emerson (a.k.a. @smallbizlady), #SmallBizChat happens every Wednesday night from 8-9PM EST.  Melinda, along with her co-host Cathy Larkin (@CathyWebSavvyPR) run a great event that is worth checking into as a listener/participant but also as a guest.  The whole evening is topped off with a PDF transcript of the event made available within in minutes courtesy of Sonia Schenker (@yourjobmyoffice).

Last night’s topic was, obviously, greening your small business.  I had prepared a dozen questions and answers and was expecting to field additional questions. But what happened, and here’s the beauty of Twitter and why this kind of event is Twitter at its best, is that a real dialogue occurred.  I didn’t have much chance to interject, mostly because several people had perfectly good answers that came from their day to day operations. For example, when question #2 was posted:

I, as planned, posted my 140 character response:

Its a perfectly fine answer, but the chat took off and many other terrific “definitions” kept popping up.

This is a followup post that will attempt to address some additional, wide-spread myths about the commercial sale of seed.  In this case the topic with be “GMO” seed improved through genetic engineering (an industry that is now 13 years old and which has been planted on well over 2 billion acres cumulatively, much of it in the developing world). As someone with substantial direct experience with this industry over the years, I’d like to try to speak to some distorted perspectives on this technology.

The First Biotech Crops

The four earliest commercial biotech crops commercialized in 1995/1996 were squash (virus resistant), corn (insect resistant), potatoes (insect resistant), and soybeans (herbicide tolerant). For the squash, corn and potatoes, commercialization was straight forward because it was already standard practice for farmers to buy new seed (tuber seed pieces in the case of potatoes) each year.

For soybeans there was a major commercialization challenge.  There was no question that the new technology was valuable — it would displace millions of pounds and hundreds of millions of dollars of herbicide sales.  It would also greatly increase the efficiency and convenience of producing soybeans. The challenge was that it was standard practice at the time for farmers to save-back some of their crop to use as seed the next year - more in some geographies than others.  If this practice were to continue with the new herbicide tolerant soybeans, it would have been very difficult for the company to recover its high risk investment in the new technology. Growers would simply buy seeds the first year, and then be set until they wanted to buy a new variety. This is not so different from the challenge that record labels with illegal file sharing via the internet.

The two standard solutions that most expected were either (a) charge enough upfront to make up for pervasive seed savings, or (b) raise the price of the herbicide to recover the genetic investment in that way. The first would have discouraged adoption; the second would have disrupted other crops and uses that also depended on the product. Instead, Monsanto tried something completely new (at least to the seed industry). They decided to charge a “technology fee” (”Tech Fee”) of a few $/bag and ask the farmers to sign a license agreement saying they would not save seed.  This was a pretty radical step at the time.  Monsanto also licensed the technology to many other seed companies and they too had to get growers to sign the licenses.

Laura Kurgan, Chris Jordan, Lorrie Vogel and Assaf Biderman - Pop!Tech 2009 - Camden, ME

In Part One, Lorrie Vogel explained some of the work Nike is doing to increase recycled and organic content in their products. Our conversation continues with discussing how Nike designers are encouraged to use sustainable principles in their work.

SS: You mentioned something about rewarding designers for innovating around sustainability, how does that work?

LV: As with any company centered on innovation, the process begins with Nike’s designers. To influence the designers to make responsible choices, Nike designers are scored against the Considered Index. In order to get new Considered innovations adopted faster, Nike gives innovation points to designers who come up with a brand new idea, as well as to teams who adopt considered innovations in the first year.

SS: And how are employees outside of the design department scored against the Considered Index?

LV: At Nike, there are so many different groups in different matrices, a lot of them are expected to calculate their CO2 footprint. But the Considered Index is primarily for designers.

SS: Sustainability 101 and Step by Natural Step (mentioned in this press release)- are they teaching personal sustainability practices, or teaching employees how to spot opportunities to be more responsible in the choices they make in their jobs?

It certainly is the dawning of a new era in automotive technology when the tiger in your tank becomes a moldy relic of bygone ad campaigns while the humble leftovers from harvested wheat get awards for new sustainable thinking. A. Schulman, Inc.’s AgriPlas wheat straw fiber has just been named a Blue Ribbon Finalist in Environmental Innovation by the Automotive Division of the Society of Plastics Engineers, for its application in the Ford Flex crossover vehicle.

AgriPlas’s contribution to the Flex is an injection-molded storage bin and inner lid made of polypropylene and a bio-filler made of wheat straw. Though the application is modest in scope, a spokesperson for Ford’s Plastics Research division sees it as a litmus test of things to come, in terms of increasing fuel efficiency by decreasing vehicle weight.

This impressive footprint is Nike’s Considered Air Jordan XX3, their first basketball shoe designed using the Considered Ethos.

Lorrie Vogel is the general manager of Nike Considered, Nike’s in-house sustainability think tank. She holds a degree in Industrial Design from Syracuse, and numerous patents. Her work in innovating around sustainability has helped put Nike on Fast Company’s Fast 50 list multiple times. Considering how aggressive Nike’s sustainability goals have been, it’s even more impressive that they are on track to meet their targets.

Sustainability is second only to performance when ranking the critical factors of a product. Nike is committed to making their entire collection as environmentally responsible as possible. Lorrie Vogel spoke at the Opportunity Green conference in Los Angeles, explaining some of the ways Nike is meeting these targets. In this phone interview, Lorrie expands on some of the points she touched on in her presentation. The conversation is split into two articles, in order to go deeper into the many changes that need to happen to increase use of recycled and organic materials in apparel and footwear. We begin with a discussion about materials, and conclude with the human element needed to ensure these changes occur in a timely manner.

From Nike: The long-term vision for Considered is to design products that are fully closed loop: produced using the fewest possible materials, designed for easy disassembly while allowing them to be recycled into new product or safely returned to nature at the end of their life. By 2011, 100 percent of footwear will meet baseline Considered standards, apparel by 2015 and equipment by 2020 – creating better performing products while minimizing environmental impact by reducing waste, using environmentally preferred materials and eliminate toxins.

Paul O’Callaghan is CEO of Cleantech consultancy firm, O2 Environmental Inc. and author of Water Technology Markets.

Canadian firm, Saltworks Technologies, just came out of stealth in relation to their desalination technology, which they claim reduce the electrical energy required for desalination by over 70%. They report they can produce 1m3 of water with 1kW hour of electrical energy, compared to the 3.7kWhr per m3, which is what is currently achievable using reverse osmosis with the use of energy recovery devices.

So how to they do it? Well its novel. It appears to be a new approach. And novel and new are two things scarce as hens teeth in relation to desalination technologies.

Ok, I didn’t actually clear this challenge with the Nobel Committee, but I think we could convince them.  Nobels were awarded early in the 20th century when German scientists Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch made the sequential advances that made it possible to make synthetic nitrogen fertilizer from the nitrogen gas that makes up ~80% of the atmosphere.  Without their contributions we could not have improved the lives of billions of people, and we could never have fed the increase in world population that has occurred since their work.  Of course that comes with the environmental issues I’ve been discussing in my previous posts.  I’m not forgetting that there are changes that need to be made in the way we farm to make nitrogen use more efficient and to prevent water pollution issues.

The Carbon Footprint of Fertilizer Issue

The other thing that would be good to address is the “carbon footprint” of running Haber-Bosch.  For every pound of ammonia that is synthesized, about 3.7 pounds of carbon dioxide is generated (mainly through the use of natural gas to generate hydrogen). That means to fertilize an acre of corn at 120 pounds of nitrogen, there are carbon dioxide emissions that are the equivalent of ~20 gallons of diesel. That works out to 1.59 billion gallon equivalents for just the US corn crop - some serious carbon emissions (I’ve already posted about why Organic fertilizers are not the solution here).