Solar Power Underfunded
======================================================================================
originally posted at :
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/business/16solar.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
July 16, 2007
The Energy Challenge
Solar Power Wins Enthusiasts but Not Money
By ANDREW C. REVKIN and MATTHEW L. WALD
The trade association for the nuclear power industry recently asked 1,000 Americans what energy source they thought would be used most for generating electricity in 15 years. The top choice? Not nuclear plants, or coal or natural gas. The winner was the sun, cited by 27 percent of those polled.
It is no wonder solar power has captured the public imagination. Panels that convert sunlight to electricity are winning supporters around the world — from Europe, where gleaming arrays cloak skyscrapers and farmers’ fields, to Wall Street, where stock offerings for panel makers have had a great ride, to California, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “Million Solar Roofs” initiative is promoted as building a homegrown industry and fighting global warming.
But for all the enthusiasm about harvesting sunlight, some of the most ardent experts and investors say that moving this energy source from niche to mainstream — last year it provided less than 0.01 percent of the country’s electricity supply — is unlikely without significant technological breakthroughs. And given the current scale of research in private and government laboratories, that is not expected to happen anytime soon.
Even a quarter century from now, says the Energy Department official in charge of renewable energy, solar power might account for, at best, 2 or 3 percent of the grid electricity in the United States.
In the meantime, coal-burning power plants, the main source of smokestack emissions linked to global warming, are being built around the world at a rate of more than one a week.
Propelled by government incentives in Germany and Japan, as well as a growing number of American states, sales of solar panels made of silicon that convert sunlight directly into electricity, known as photovoltaic cells, have taken off, lowering manufacturing costs and leading to product refinements.
But Vinod Khosla, a prominent Silicon Valley entrepreneur who focuses on energy, said the market-driven improvements were not happening fast enough to put solar technology beyond much more than a boutique investment.
“Most of the environmental stuff out there now is toys compared to the scale we need to really solve the planet’s problems,” Mr. Khosla said.
Video
More Video »
Scientists long ago calculated that an hour’s worth of the sunlight bathing the planet held far more energy than humans worldwide could use in a year, and the first practical devices for converting light to electricity were designed more than half a century ago.
Yet research on solar power and methods for storing intermittent energy has long received less spending, both in the United States and in other industrialized countries, than energy options with more political support.
Indeed, there are few major programs looking for ways to drastically reduce the cost of converting sunlight to energy and — of equal if not more importance — of efficiently storing it for when the sun is not shining.
Scientists are hoping to expand the range of sunlight’s wavelengths that can be absorbed, and to cut the amount of energy the cells lose to heat. One goal is to make materials to force photons to ricochet around inside the silicon to give up more of their energy.
For decades, conventional nuclear power and nuclear fusion received dominant shares of government energy-research money. While venture capitalists often support the commercialization of new technologies, basic research money comes almost entirely from the federal government.
These days, a growing amount of government money is headed to the farm-state favorite, biofuels, and to research on burning coal while capturing the resulting carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping smokestack gas.
In the current fiscal year, the Energy Department plans to spend $159 million on solar research and development. It will spend nearly double, $303 million, on nuclear energy research and development, and nearly triple, $427 million, on coal, as well as $167 million on other fossil fuel research and development.
Raymond L. Orbach, the under secretary of energy for science, said the administration’s challenge was to spread a finite pot of money to all the technologies that will help supply energy without adding to global warming. “No one source of energy that we know of is going to solve it,” Dr. Orbach said. “This is about a portfolio.”
In the battle for money from Washington, solar lobbyists say they are outgunned by their counterparts representing coal, corn and the atom.
“Coal and nuclear count their lobbying budgets in the tens of millions,” said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. “We count ours in the tens of thousands.”
Government spending on energy research has long been shaped by political constituencies. Nuclear power, for example, has enjoyed consistent support from the Senate Energy Committee no matter which party is in power — in large part because Senators Jeff Bingaman and Pete V. Domenici, the Democratic chairman and the ranking Republican, are both from New Mexico, home to Los Alamos National Laboratory and a branch of the Sandia National Laboratories.
Biofuels, mostly ethanol and biodiesel, have attracted lawmakers who support farm subsidies. Last year an impromptu coalition established a goal of producing 25 percent of the country’s energy, including vehicle fuel, from renewable sources by 2025. Legislation to that effect attracted 34 senators and 69 representatives as co-sponsors; the resolutions are pending in both houses. Most of the measure’s supporters are from agricultural areas.
For the moment, the strongest government support for solar power is coming from the states, not Washington. But there, too, the focus remains on stimulating markets, not laboratory research.
The federal government is proposing more spending on solar research now, but not enough to set off a large, sustained energy quest, many experts say.
“This is not an arena where private energy companies are likely to make the breakthrough,” said Nathan S. Lewis, head of a solar-research laboratory at the California Institute of Technology.
Many environmental organizations are pushing for tax credits for people who buy solar equipment, which helps manufacturing but not research.
Still, some experts say government-financed research efforts often go awry. And several government officials defended the current effort, saying an outsize investment in solar research is not needed because the industry is already in high gear.
Bush administration officials say they are committed to making power from photovoltaic technology as well as “solar thermal” systems competitive with other sources by 2015.
Alexander Karsner, the lead Energy Department official for renewable energy technology and efficiency, said the expanded use of photovoltaic cells could have its greatest impact by substantially reducing the energy thirst of new buildings.
To be sure, there are some promising signs in solar energy.
Big arrays of mirrors that concentrate sunlight to run turbines, which first emerged in the early 1980s, are resurgent in sun-baked places like the American Southwest, Spain and Australia. Some developers say this solar thermal technology is competitive now with power generated by natural gas when demand, and prices, hit periodic peaks.
With more research, the solar thermal method might allow for storing energy. Currently, all solar power is hampered by a lack of storage capability.
“The scale on which things actually have to happen on energy is not fully either appreciated or transmitted to the public,” said Dr. Lewis of Caltech. “You have to find a really cheap way to capture that light, for the price of carpet or paint, and also convert it efficiently into something humans can use for energy.”
After more than two decades in which research on converting solar power to electricity largely lapsed, the Bush administration and lawmakers in Congress are now discussing more money for the field. Dr. Orbach said the Energy Department’s proposed research plan for 2008 to 2012 includes $1.1 billion for solar advances, more than the $896 million going toward fusion.
But many scientists, perhaps seasoned by past energy cycles, doubt that the new burst of interest is sufficient to lure the best young minds in chemistry and physics. After encouraging 346 research groups last year to seek grants for surmounting hurdles to harnessing solar power, the Energy Department this year ended up awarding $22.7 million over three years to 27 projects — hardly the stuff of an energy revolution, several scientists said.
“There is plenty of intellectual firepower in the U.S.,” said Prashant V. Kamat, an expert in the chemistry of solar cells at the University of Notre Dame, who has some Energy Department financing. “But there is limited encouragement to take up the challenge.”
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Regulations Against Solar Power
==================================================================================
originally posted at:
http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/content/jul2007/tc20070710_273201.htm
Congress Needs to Take a Shine to Solar
Momentum to create domestic sources of renewable energy is growing. But to make it catch fire nationwide, Washington must pass legislation
by Travis Bradford
Are traditional energy utilities casting a shadow on solar power? Nationwide, nearly one megawatt (1,000 kilowatts) of new solar energy capacity is being installed per business day. Yet it's not happening uniformly across the country, not even in many states where sunshine is abundant or where the nation's fastest population growth is driving more demand for all kinds of electricity.
Take Arizona. With nearly 300 days of sunshine a year, Arizona leaders put in place legislation that requires traditional utilities to generate 15% of their electricity from solar and other renewable energies. Despite such clear legislative mandates, the state's utility regulator, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), is considering rules that may stifle the deployment of solar systems in one of the nation's sunniest states. The ACC's proposed rules for supplying extra solar power to the local utility's electrical grid would effectively discourage a large retailer or even a smaller business from installing more than 100 kilowatts of solar panel capacity on its property. That's because there would be little payoff for that business in selling any more than 100 kilowatts of unused electricity produced during off-peak hours for that business. With such a cap, only businesses with very small physical buildings will consider deploying solar, and most of the effective solar demand will go unmet in Arizona.
Bogged Down by Rules
Why, despite its legislated goal to increase the use of renewable energy, would Arizona prevent its own solar industry from doing business within its borders? This is just one example of the exceedingly complex state-by-state rules governing not just interconnection, but the accounting for the electricity supplied to that grid by would-be solar producers and the rates they're paid for it. This complexity effectively deters businesses and home owners from installing solar power-generation systems. This, in turn, hurts demand for solar-energy service providers such as Sun Edison and solar panel makers such as BP Solar, First Solar (FSLR), and Evergreen Solar (ESLR).
In June, the U.S. Senate had a chance to speed the deployment of solar energy. Yet, in a surprising compromise on the federal energy bill, the Senate abandoned a provision to encourage nationwide deployment of most forms of renewable energy. Bowing to lobbying pressure and the political realities of compromise, the Senate jettisoned a comprehensive $32 billion package of incentives that would have dramatically improved the prospect of solving our nation's addiction to fossil fuels. These incentives for clean energy were to be paid for by reductions in subsidies given to oil producers.
The Senate's failure to truly support solar is highly disappointing. Yet the momentum toward creating cheaper, cleaner, and domestic sources of vital energy from renewable sources continues to grow. The prospect—and demand—for future renewable energy legislation still exists. However, the raw political power displayed by fossil fuel producers during the energy bill debate adds new urgency to the discussion of how to create rules and incentives that strengthen the commercialization of renewable energy. Those decisions will define our future as we grapple with accelerating energy, economic, security, and environmental challenges.
Monopoly-as-Usual?
The best way to create cheaper and cleaner domestic power is to facilitate competition from renewable energy sources. To do this, we must address some structural issues revealed during the energy bill debate. For starters, we need to decide who should be allowed to provide renewable energy solutions to U.S. citizens and businesses. The current setup threatens to enable only traditional utilities to deploy new technologies rather than opening the way for new providers and even users themselves to become power suppliers. Are we interested in creating energy competition, or are we satisfied with monopoly-as-usual?
In the failed Senate bill, Congress was on the verge of putting real meaning to renewable energy competition with the proposed extension of the federal tax incentives for solar energy. Set to expire at the end of 2008, the 30% tax credit would have been extended to the end of 2016 and modified to allow electric utilities themselves to claim the credit, opening the door for them to participate in the commercial deployment of solar energy.
Best Practices
Yet even if it had passed into law, that provision would not have been sufficient to break down barriers to creating real market competition from solar energy. The reason: Today, many traditional utilities would still be able to exploit regulatory and structural obstacles that slow or block third-party providers of solar energy from selling their excess electricity. These include inconsistent, state-by-state rules governing how solar producers can connect to the traditional grid, as well as the varying limits on the solar capacity. The result is that Staples (SPLS), Wal-Mart (WMT), and other companies are deploying solar rooftop systems in California and New Jersey, where the rules are favorable, but won't do the same in Arizona.
In other words, when a state gives its traditional utilities an unambiguous signal about the need for more solar energy, such as it has in California and Colorado, the result is aggressive deployment. In such states, traditional energy providers are setting a strong example by adopting best practices for interconnection and metering with solar energy. Notably, by 2008, Xcel Energy will actually purchase power from an 8.22-megawatt solar plant being built in Alamosa, Colo.
But when the rules are not clear, as in Arizona and even Florida (the Sunshine State), very little solar generating capacity is deployed. Should utilities be allowed to take advantage of tax credits for deploying their own solar capacity while this regulatory patchwork remains in place, the effect would be to empower them to capture market share with one hand while keeping competition out with the other.
To avert such an outcome, Congress needs to adopt national best practices for interconnection, metering, and rates similar to those implemented in Colorado, New Jersey, Maryland, and California. In short, if utilities are going to be allowed federal tax incentives to enter the solar market, then that market should be open to anyone else wanting to serve it. Let's get on with using this moment in history to create an energy policy that promotes competition and speeds the deployment of clean, cheap, local sources of energy rather than encouraging more of the same from last century's lobbyists.
Travis Bradford, author of Solar Revolution (MIT Press, 2006), is the founder and president of the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development in Cambridge, Mass
==================================================================================
originally posted at:
http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/content/jul2007/tc20070710_273201.htm
Congress Needs to Take a Shine to Solar
Momentum to create domestic sources of renewable energy is growing. But to make it catch fire nationwide, Washington must pass legislation
by Travis Bradford
Are traditional energy utilities casting a shadow on solar power? Nationwide, nearly one megawatt (1,000 kilowatts) of new solar energy capacity is being installed per business day. Yet it's not happening uniformly across the country, not even in many states where sunshine is abundant or where the nation's fastest population growth is driving more demand for all kinds of electricity.
Take Arizona. With nearly 300 days of sunshine a year, Arizona leaders put in place legislation that requires traditional utilities to generate 15% of their electricity from solar and other renewable energies. Despite such clear legislative mandates, the state's utility regulator, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), is considering rules that may stifle the deployment of solar systems in one of the nation's sunniest states. The ACC's proposed rules for supplying extra solar power to the local utility's electrical grid would effectively discourage a large retailer or even a smaller business from installing more than 100 kilowatts of solar panel capacity on its property. That's because there would be little payoff for that business in selling any more than 100 kilowatts of unused electricity produced during off-peak hours for that business. With such a cap, only businesses with very small physical buildings will consider deploying solar, and most of the effective solar demand will go unmet in Arizona.
Bogged Down by Rules
Why, despite its legislated goal to increase the use of renewable energy, would Arizona prevent its own solar industry from doing business within its borders? This is just one example of the exceedingly complex state-by-state rules governing not just interconnection, but the accounting for the electricity supplied to that grid by would-be solar producers and the rates they're paid for it. This complexity effectively deters businesses and home owners from installing solar power-generation systems. This, in turn, hurts demand for solar-energy service providers such as Sun Edison and solar panel makers such as BP Solar, First Solar (FSLR), and Evergreen Solar (ESLR).
In June, the U.S. Senate had a chance to speed the deployment of solar energy. Yet, in a surprising compromise on the federal energy bill, the Senate abandoned a provision to encourage nationwide deployment of most forms of renewable energy. Bowing to lobbying pressure and the political realities of compromise, the Senate jettisoned a comprehensive $32 billion package of incentives that would have dramatically improved the prospect of solving our nation's addiction to fossil fuels. These incentives for clean energy were to be paid for by reductions in subsidies given to oil producers.
The Senate's failure to truly support solar is highly disappointing. Yet the momentum toward creating cheaper, cleaner, and domestic sources of vital energy from renewable sources continues to grow. The prospect—and demand—for future renewable energy legislation still exists. However, the raw political power displayed by fossil fuel producers during the energy bill debate adds new urgency to the discussion of how to create rules and incentives that strengthen the commercialization of renewable energy. Those decisions will define our future as we grapple with accelerating energy, economic, security, and environmental challenges.
Monopoly-as-Usual?
The best way to create cheaper and cleaner domestic power is to facilitate competition from renewable energy sources. To do this, we must address some structural issues revealed during the energy bill debate. For starters, we need to decide who should be allowed to provide renewable energy solutions to U.S. citizens and businesses. The current setup threatens to enable only traditional utilities to deploy new technologies rather than opening the way for new providers and even users themselves to become power suppliers. Are we interested in creating energy competition, or are we satisfied with monopoly-as-usual?
In the failed Senate bill, Congress was on the verge of putting real meaning to renewable energy competition with the proposed extension of the federal tax incentives for solar energy. Set to expire at the end of 2008, the 30% tax credit would have been extended to the end of 2016 and modified to allow electric utilities themselves to claim the credit, opening the door for them to participate in the commercial deployment of solar energy.
Best Practices
Yet even if it had passed into law, that provision would not have been sufficient to break down barriers to creating real market competition from solar energy. The reason: Today, many traditional utilities would still be able to exploit regulatory and structural obstacles that slow or block third-party providers of solar energy from selling their excess electricity. These include inconsistent, state-by-state rules governing how solar producers can connect to the traditional grid, as well as the varying limits on the solar capacity. The result is that Staples (SPLS), Wal-Mart (WMT), and other companies are deploying solar rooftop systems in California and New Jersey, where the rules are favorable, but won't do the same in Arizona.
In other words, when a state gives its traditional utilities an unambiguous signal about the need for more solar energy, such as it has in California and Colorado, the result is aggressive deployment. In such states, traditional energy providers are setting a strong example by adopting best practices for interconnection and metering with solar energy. Notably, by 2008, Xcel Energy will actually purchase power from an 8.22-megawatt solar plant being built in Alamosa, Colo.
But when the rules are not clear, as in Arizona and even Florida (the Sunshine State), very little solar generating capacity is deployed. Should utilities be allowed to take advantage of tax credits for deploying their own solar capacity while this regulatory patchwork remains in place, the effect would be to empower them to capture market share with one hand while keeping competition out with the other.
To avert such an outcome, Congress needs to adopt national best practices for interconnection, metering, and rates similar to those implemented in Colorado, New Jersey, Maryland, and California. In short, if utilities are going to be allowed federal tax incentives to enter the solar market, then that market should be open to anyone else wanting to serve it. Let's get on with using this moment in history to create an energy policy that promotes competition and speeds the deployment of clean, cheap, local sources of energy rather than encouraging more of the same from last century's lobbyists.
Travis Bradford, author of Solar Revolution (MIT Press, 2006), is the founder and president of the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development in Cambridge, Mass
Returnable Bottles Cost-Benefit Analysis
===================================================================================
originally posted at: www.grrn.org/beverage/refillables/ecologic.html
Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) takes LCA a step further by assigning monetary values to the environmental impacts and natural resource demands of beverage packaging systems. While the assignment of these values has many methodological limitations [CBA, pp. 17-20][LEVY, pp. 79-81], its ethical limitations probably draw the most vociferous criticism. Many critics of CBA argue that the environment is something on which you cannot place a monetary value.
Two CBA studies are considered here. The tallies of LCA results use some of the findings from a CBA study that was completed for the Austrian Ministry of the Environment in 2000 [GUA]. In 2001, the consulting firms RDC-Environment and Pira International completed a CBA study for the European Commission (EC), who intended to use the findings to set new recovery targets for the EC Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste. This study compared 330-ml refillable glass bottles with one-way glass bottles of the same size by investigating the container manufacturing, filling, distribution, and waste management processes under the following assumptions [CBA].
* The return rate for the refillable bottles is 100 percent.
* All bottle losses occur during washing and refilling.
* The round-trip distance from the warehouse to the store is 100 Km.
* Consumers recycle their commingled bottles and other containers only at drop-off centers. Industry bears all of the costs of recycling.
* The portion of one-way bottles that are not recycled is split equally between landfilling and incineration.
The study concluded that refillable glass bottles cost less environmentally than one-way glass bottles do whenever the distance from the bottling plant to the warehouse is less than 3,500 Km with 20 trips for the refillable bottle and a 91 percent recycling rate for the one-way bottle; less than 4,200 Km with 20 trips and a 42 percent recycling rate; less than 2,300 Km with 5 trips and a 91 percent recycling rate; and less than 3,000 Km with 5 trips and a 42 percent recycling rate. The RDC-Pira study also attempted a similar comparison for PET bottles, but it apparently omitted the costs of washing bottles.
===================================================================================
originally posted at: www.grrn.org/beverage/refillables/ecologic.html
Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) takes LCA a step further by assigning monetary values to the environmental impacts and natural resource demands of beverage packaging systems. While the assignment of these values has many methodological limitations [CBA, pp. 17-20][LEVY, pp. 79-81], its ethical limitations probably draw the most vociferous criticism. Many critics of CBA argue that the environment is something on which you cannot place a monetary value.
Two CBA studies are considered here. The tallies of LCA results use some of the findings from a CBA study that was completed for the Austrian Ministry of the Environment in 2000 [GUA]. In 2001, the consulting firms RDC-Environment and Pira International completed a CBA study for the European Commission (EC), who intended to use the findings to set new recovery targets for the EC Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste. This study compared 330-ml refillable glass bottles with one-way glass bottles of the same size by investigating the container manufacturing, filling, distribution, and waste management processes under the following assumptions [CBA].
* The return rate for the refillable bottles is 100 percent.
* All bottle losses occur during washing and refilling.
* The round-trip distance from the warehouse to the store is 100 Km.
* Consumers recycle their commingled bottles and other containers only at drop-off centers. Industry bears all of the costs of recycling.
* The portion of one-way bottles that are not recycled is split equally between landfilling and incineration.
The study concluded that refillable glass bottles cost less environmentally than one-way glass bottles do whenever the distance from the bottling plant to the warehouse is less than 3,500 Km with 20 trips for the refillable bottle and a 91 percent recycling rate for the one-way bottle; less than 4,200 Km with 20 trips and a 42 percent recycling rate; less than 2,300 Km with 5 trips and a 91 percent recycling rate; and less than 3,000 Km with 5 trips and a 42 percent recycling rate. The RDC-Pira study also attempted a similar comparison for PET bottles, but it apparently omitted the costs of washing bottles.
Solar Ovens, Dual Flush Toilets, and Watering Trees Right
=======================================================================================
Save water with dual flush toilets. Using the same amount every time doesn't make sense. One button uses 1.6 gallons, a typical "low-flow" amount, but the other button uses 0.8 gallons.
They are made by Caroma (http://www.caromausa.com/products/toilets.htm) and you can buy them at Ferguson's in Rockville at 800-A East Gude Drive/ (301) 424-1393.
If you want to use even less water, is a composting toilet for you? Check them out at:
http://www.envirolet.com/prices.html
Green Democrats Do It Yourself Corner.
Make a solar powered Oven: http://solarcookers.org/
Water Your Trees Effectively: http://www.caseytrees.org/stew07basics.pdf (Thanks to Kathleen Michels)
=======================================================================================
Save water with dual flush toilets. Using the same amount every time doesn't make sense. One button uses 1.6 gallons, a typical "low-flow" amount, but the other button uses 0.8 gallons.
They are made by Caroma (http://www.caromausa.com/products/toilets.htm) and you can buy them at Ferguson's in Rockville at 800-A East Gude Drive/ (301) 424-1393.
If you want to use even less water, is a composting toilet for you? Check them out at:
http://www.envirolet.com/prices.html
Green Democrats Do It Yourself Corner.
Make a solar powered Oven: http://solarcookers.org/
Water Your Trees Effectively: http://www.caseytrees.org/stew07basics.pdf (Thanks to Kathleen Michels)
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Saving Trees Is Music to Guitar Makers’ Ears
==================================================================
Originally posted at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/business/smallbusiness/07sbiz.html
Source: Copyright 2007, New York Times
Date: June 7, 2007
Byline: Glenn Rifkin
Christian F. Martin IV is the sixth generation to run his family’s renowned guitar-making business, C. F. Martin & Company. But he is surely the first to worry about the availability of the distinctive woods needed to build Martin guitars, the choice of musicians like Sting, Paul Simon, Jimmy Buffett and John Mayer.
As old growth forests have been razed and several species of tropical woods like mahogany, ebony and rosewood have become much scarcer, guitar makers like Martin, Taylor, Fender and Gibson have had to rethink the notion that there is an inexhaustible supply of the desired woods to make their instruments.
As small, privately held companies, these instrument makers have banded together to join the burgeoning corporate social responsibility movement, not just to appear politically correct but to ensure their long-term survival.
“If I use up all the good wood, I’m out of business,” Mr. Martin said. “I have a 2-year-old daughter, Claire Frances Martin, and she can be the seventh generation C. F. Martin. I want her to be able to get materials she’ll need, just as my ancestors and I have over the past 174 years.”
Though they are fierce competitors for a small but vibrant marketplace, the companies have become aware of the significant changes in the availability and price of the best woods. In an unusual alliance, the four guitar makers have joined with Greenpeace in one of many efforts to bring attention to forest management and sustainability.
Bob Taylor, president and co-founder of Taylor Guitars in El Cajon, Calif., says that he has observed one vital wood species after another become unavailable in the 35 years he has been in business.
“I used to buy Brazilian rosewood back in the 1970s at the lumber yard for $2 a square foot,” Mr. Taylor said. “Now it’s impossible for us to make a guitar out of it and ship it outside the U.S. If we do get a little bit of it, it’s extremely expensive. The cutting of it has all but halted.”
He added that “Adirondack spruce is unavailable. Mahogany was so plentiful it was a commodity. Now only specialty cutters are getting it, and the prices have gone through the roof. All these things happened just in my lifetime.”
Greenpeace headed the Musicwood Coalition, as it is called, in January 2006, to promote better logging practices, particularly in the rain forest region in southeast Alaska. Because of its unique geography — a thin strip of land in the Alaska panhandle with the ocean on one side, huge mountains on the other — this temperate forest is considered one of the rarest on the planet.
Its majestic trees — Sitka spruce that are hundreds of years old — have been clear cut by private timber companies, and Greenpeace has worked to encourage these landowners to try new approaches that would help preserve the ancient forests.
Specifically, Greenpeace wants the private logging companies to apply for certification by the Forest Stewardship Council, an environmental organization that would require the adoption of different logging practices. Scott Paul, the forest campaign coordinator for Greenpeace, said that if the current practices continued, the last old-growth Sitka spruce trees would be gone in just six or seven years.
“This scared the hell out of them,” Mr. Paul said of the guitar makers. For them, Sitka spruce is a precious commodity, a tonal wood used for the soundboards in acoustic guitars and pianos. To achieve the sound that guitarists cherish, the Sitka spruce, at least 250 years old, has long been a required material.
Mr. Paul said that the amount of Sitka spruce used by guitar manufacturers is a tiny fraction of the total shipped. As few as 150 logs are enough to supply the whole industry each year. Nearly 80 percent of the spruce cut in Alaska is shipped to Asia, primarily Japan, for home building.
“These 400-year-old trees are getting buried in the walls of homes in Japan,” Mr. Paul said.
But while researching the customer list of Sealaska, the largest private logging company in the area, he noticed the names of well-known instrument makers and decided to get them involved to create public awareness of the issue.
Mr. Paul approached Henry E. Juszkiewicz, the chief executive of Gibson Guitar. Mr. Juszkiewicz was an early supporter of the Rain Forest Alliance on whose board he sits and helped start the SmartWood program, which monitors the poaching of endangered wood species. Over the last decade, illegal poaching of old-growth trees has become a serious problem, particularly in the Pacific Northwest.
He rallied his competitors to join the Greenpeace effort. “This is both a public relations effort and an effort to do the right thing for our kids,” Mr. Juszkiewicz said.
Though the market for guitars is small — Mr. Martin estimates that three million acoustic and electric guitars are sold in the United States each year — it is growing again, especially among serious amateurs willing to pay $2,000 and up for a quality instrument.
The guitar makers are looking for alternative woods that are more plentiful and cheaper, but everyone agrees that buyers who spend a lot of money for an instrument are looking for a distinctive sound as well as the characteristic look and feel of traditional woods.
“In many cases, alternative species of woods will deliver a consumer a great instrument,” Mr. Juszkiewicz said. “From a marketing standpoint though, it’s a different story.”
His view is echoed by Brian Berk, editor in chief of the Music and Sound Retailer, an industry trade publication. “It’s going to be difficult for this effort to make a major impact on the industry because the sound is so important to the end user,” Mr. Berk said. “There are definitely replacement woods that are sustainable for making guitars. But will they sound great?”
Rock stars like Sting and Dave Matthews, among others, are lending their names to the effort. Orianthi, a 22-year-old Australian protégée of Carlos Santana who recently signed with Geffen Records, bought a new $3,000 Martin made of red birch and cherry, both sustainable woods. “Guitars made from alternative woods generally don’t sound very good,” she said, “but when I started playing this one, it sounded amazing, as good as the traditional instruments. I’m using it to record my new album.”
For the dealers, however, the buyers of high-end guitars continue to crave Brazilian rosewood and mahogany. “People are looking for investment-grade guitars,” said Joe Caruso, co-owner of the Music Emporium in Lexington, Mass. “I’ve got guitars for $25,000, and that upper-tier market has really blossomed over the last 10 years.”
Mr. Caruso noted that all guitar makers, including smaller specialty manufacturers like Collings Guitars in Austin, Tex., and independent luthiers around the country, are charging more for guitars made from the great tonal woods.
“The idea is simple: Let’s treat this resource for what it is, a really valuable, really scarce material,” Mr. Caruso said. “If you want it, pay for it.”
Mr. Martin, as with his counterparts, is seeking compromise solutions that favor better forest management rather than a complete cessation of logging in those forests. He is wary of telling the people of indigenous cultures how to run their businesses, but he doesn’t want shortsighted economic goals to endanger the future of his own business.
“None of us,” he said, “want to cut the last tree.”
==================================================================
Originally posted at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/business/smallbusiness/07sbiz.html
Source: Copyright 2007, New York Times
Date: June 7, 2007
Byline: Glenn Rifkin
Christian F. Martin IV is the sixth generation to run his family’s renowned guitar-making business, C. F. Martin & Company. But he is surely the first to worry about the availability of the distinctive woods needed to build Martin guitars, the choice of musicians like Sting, Paul Simon, Jimmy Buffett and John Mayer.
As old growth forests have been razed and several species of tropical woods like mahogany, ebony and rosewood have become much scarcer, guitar makers like Martin, Taylor, Fender and Gibson have had to rethink the notion that there is an inexhaustible supply of the desired woods to make their instruments.
As small, privately held companies, these instrument makers have banded together to join the burgeoning corporate social responsibility movement, not just to appear politically correct but to ensure their long-term survival.
“If I use up all the good wood, I’m out of business,” Mr. Martin said. “I have a 2-year-old daughter, Claire Frances Martin, and she can be the seventh generation C. F. Martin. I want her to be able to get materials she’ll need, just as my ancestors and I have over the past 174 years.”
Though they are fierce competitors for a small but vibrant marketplace, the companies have become aware of the significant changes in the availability and price of the best woods. In an unusual alliance, the four guitar makers have joined with Greenpeace in one of many efforts to bring attention to forest management and sustainability.
Bob Taylor, president and co-founder of Taylor Guitars in El Cajon, Calif., says that he has observed one vital wood species after another become unavailable in the 35 years he has been in business.
“I used to buy Brazilian rosewood back in the 1970s at the lumber yard for $2 a square foot,” Mr. Taylor said. “Now it’s impossible for us to make a guitar out of it and ship it outside the U.S. If we do get a little bit of it, it’s extremely expensive. The cutting of it has all but halted.”
He added that “Adirondack spruce is unavailable. Mahogany was so plentiful it was a commodity. Now only specialty cutters are getting it, and the prices have gone through the roof. All these things happened just in my lifetime.”
Greenpeace headed the Musicwood Coalition, as it is called, in January 2006, to promote better logging practices, particularly in the rain forest region in southeast Alaska. Because of its unique geography — a thin strip of land in the Alaska panhandle with the ocean on one side, huge mountains on the other — this temperate forest is considered one of the rarest on the planet.
Its majestic trees — Sitka spruce that are hundreds of years old — have been clear cut by private timber companies, and Greenpeace has worked to encourage these landowners to try new approaches that would help preserve the ancient forests.
Specifically, Greenpeace wants the private logging companies to apply for certification by the Forest Stewardship Council, an environmental organization that would require the adoption of different logging practices. Scott Paul, the forest campaign coordinator for Greenpeace, said that if the current practices continued, the last old-growth Sitka spruce trees would be gone in just six or seven years.
“This scared the hell out of them,” Mr. Paul said of the guitar makers. For them, Sitka spruce is a precious commodity, a tonal wood used for the soundboards in acoustic guitars and pianos. To achieve the sound that guitarists cherish, the Sitka spruce, at least 250 years old, has long been a required material.
Mr. Paul said that the amount of Sitka spruce used by guitar manufacturers is a tiny fraction of the total shipped. As few as 150 logs are enough to supply the whole industry each year. Nearly 80 percent of the spruce cut in Alaska is shipped to Asia, primarily Japan, for home building.
“These 400-year-old trees are getting buried in the walls of homes in Japan,” Mr. Paul said.
But while researching the customer list of Sealaska, the largest private logging company in the area, he noticed the names of well-known instrument makers and decided to get them involved to create public awareness of the issue.
Mr. Paul approached Henry E. Juszkiewicz, the chief executive of Gibson Guitar. Mr. Juszkiewicz was an early supporter of the Rain Forest Alliance on whose board he sits and helped start the SmartWood program, which monitors the poaching of endangered wood species. Over the last decade, illegal poaching of old-growth trees has become a serious problem, particularly in the Pacific Northwest.
He rallied his competitors to join the Greenpeace effort. “This is both a public relations effort and an effort to do the right thing for our kids,” Mr. Juszkiewicz said.
Though the market for guitars is small — Mr. Martin estimates that three million acoustic and electric guitars are sold in the United States each year — it is growing again, especially among serious amateurs willing to pay $2,000 and up for a quality instrument.
The guitar makers are looking for alternative woods that are more plentiful and cheaper, but everyone agrees that buyers who spend a lot of money for an instrument are looking for a distinctive sound as well as the characteristic look and feel of traditional woods.
“In many cases, alternative species of woods will deliver a consumer a great instrument,” Mr. Juszkiewicz said. “From a marketing standpoint though, it’s a different story.”
His view is echoed by Brian Berk, editor in chief of the Music and Sound Retailer, an industry trade publication. “It’s going to be difficult for this effort to make a major impact on the industry because the sound is so important to the end user,” Mr. Berk said. “There are definitely replacement woods that are sustainable for making guitars. But will they sound great?”
Rock stars like Sting and Dave Matthews, among others, are lending their names to the effort. Orianthi, a 22-year-old Australian protégée of Carlos Santana who recently signed with Geffen Records, bought a new $3,000 Martin made of red birch and cherry, both sustainable woods. “Guitars made from alternative woods generally don’t sound very good,” she said, “but when I started playing this one, it sounded amazing, as good as the traditional instruments. I’m using it to record my new album.”
For the dealers, however, the buyers of high-end guitars continue to crave Brazilian rosewood and mahogany. “People are looking for investment-grade guitars,” said Joe Caruso, co-owner of the Music Emporium in Lexington, Mass. “I’ve got guitars for $25,000, and that upper-tier market has really blossomed over the last 10 years.”
Mr. Caruso noted that all guitar makers, including smaller specialty manufacturers like Collings Guitars in Austin, Tex., and independent luthiers around the country, are charging more for guitars made from the great tonal woods.
“The idea is simple: Let’s treat this resource for what it is, a really valuable, really scarce material,” Mr. Caruso said. “If you want it, pay for it.”
Mr. Martin, as with his counterparts, is seeking compromise solutions that favor better forest management rather than a complete cessation of logging in those forests. He is wary of telling the people of indigenous cultures how to run their businesses, but he doesn’t want shortsighted economic goals to endanger the future of his own business.
“None of us,” he said, “want to cut the last tree.”
Alternative Vehicles Triple Threat
====================================================================
Four wheel electric bicycle
=================================================
See http://www.rhoadescar.com/jumpqand.htm
Lightning Electric Car
=====================================
Originally posted at
http://www.motorcities.com/contents/07/2008-Lightning-GT-700hp-Electric-Sportscar-Update_07FAB152803685.html
the lightning takes the performance car market electric
The Lightning Car Company today announced its development of a range of 700 bhp Lightning electric cars, for the first time genuinely harnessing electric motive power and uniting it with class-leading sports car design, engineering and production.
The remarkable car range has been conceived to satisfy three essential criteria, namely to deliver a highly stylised, graceful sports car with cues hinting at the quintessential British treatment of Aston Martin or TVR while delivering an explosive, dynamic performance based on new breakthrough electric technologies that make the ownership experience quicker, easier and cleaner than traditionally fuelled cars.
The Lightning Car Company draws upon 25 years of automotive experience from design and engineering personnel whose industry experience includes McLaren, Lola, Ronart and Vanwall, as well as championing the adoption and use of new generation electric battery and motor technologies derived from application in the aerospace industry. The business owners jointly share a clear vision of an electric-powered future for high performance motoring.
The Lightning began life as a traditionally powered petrol vehicle in order to develop the car’s chassis dynamics. Battery and motor technology applications allow the handling characteristics of the car to be optimised. The chassis derives its inherent dynamic quality from its aluminium honeycomb and carbon composite monocoque structure, essentially a Formula One derived concept that blends low mass with high impact qualities.
Arthur Wolstenholme, Technical Director at Lightning explains, “Ten, or perhaps even five years ago, electric power was dismissed as a poor substitute for petrol, diesel or LPG. But the world has moved on significantly – from military and aerospace applications, electric motor and battery technologies have been developed that will enable the Lightning to demonstrate 700 plus bhp performance over a range that exceeds some of today’s petrol performance cars. What’s more, the Lightning is intended to compete with premium market sport cars, but our electric power should outstrip the response rates, torque characteristics and driveability of most exotic performance super cars. Electric power has truly arrived in the performance market.”
The Lightning is set to dismiss all the preconceptions about electric power. It will be there immediately, and in abundance, providing amazing responsiveness. And, with a chassis designed to be more than capable dynamically, will make a great point to point proposition to rival the established guard.
The Lightning will combine high performance electric motive power with an advanced regenerative energy system that recharges the car’s batteries under braking by capturing lost friction energy. This emerging technology utilised by Lightning in the road car sector will be adopted by Formula One from 2008 when KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems) become mandatory. The Lightning’s use of this technology enables the range of the car to be extended to over 250 miles/400km.
With concourse elegance, blistering performance (expected to be a 0-60 time of sub 4 seconds) and a ten minute charge time to sustain a 250 mile range, the ownership costs of the Lightning range are set to be significantly lower than traditional fossil fuelled vehicles, with exemption from road tax, congestion charging and an urban cycle energy cost estimated at 2.2p per mile, the Lightning could be as much as £10,000 per year cheaper to run than a Audi RS4 based on an average 20,000 miles of motoring.
There are 3 Lightning models planned, a Grand Tourer, a competent and quick car which maintains a depth of luxury and specification; the Lightning Sport is the GT’s lightweight, purposeful cousin, with the ability to achieve 0-60 in under 4 seconds. The third Lightning will be an extended range model, with the capability of reaching an estimated 250 miles on a single 10 minute charge.
The electric Lightning prototypes are now in development and pre-orders are being taken for 2008 delivery. Customised options for interior and exterior finishes and accessories will be available on a build to order basis.
THE ELECTRIC LIGHTNING - TOP 10 FEATURES
Ultra smooth 100% electric power (700+bhp) immediately from zero rpm
10 minute charge time for over 250 miles of motoring (GTSE model)
Uncompromising performance with 0-60mph in less than 4 seconds (GTS model)
State of the art NanoSafe™ battery system and Hi-Pa Drive™ electric motor technology
Full regenerative braking so the battery receives charge every time you slow down, travel downhill or simply coast
Commanding presence of carbon fibre/Kevlar hand-crafted bodywork
Clean technology means no congestion charge or road tax and the ultimate A grade green rating
Phenomenal economy up to 10 x cheaper to run than petrol
Safer with no large fuel tank, thermally stable batteries and a bodywork structure similar to that used in F1 to protect the driver
Luxury spec. interior – incorporating sat nav, ipod interface and virtual engine sound
MORE ABOUT ELECTRIC LIGHTNING TECHNOLOGY
NanoSafe™ from Altairnano Inc.
Until now, battery technology has hindered electric vehicle innovation. In 2000, US company Altairnano Inc. established a research programme to create an ultra safe, high power battery using cutting-edge Nanotechnology. The result of their hard work is the NanoSafe™ battery.
SAFER - NanoSafe™ batteries use nano titanate materials instead of graphite which makes them far more thermally stable - there are no toxics or heavy metals used in NanoSafe™ batteries.
LONGER-LASTING - NanoSafe™ batteries have a life expectancy of 12+ years, versus the 3-5 year life of other batteries. NanoSafe™ can retain up to 85% charge capacity after 15,000 charges.
FASTER CHARGE - NanoSafe™ batteries can be recharged in approximately 10 minutes, rather than the hours required by many other rechargeable batteries.
MORE POWERFUL - With instantaneous power even at extreme temperatures, NanoSafe™ batteries deliver power per unit weight and unit volume several times that of conventional Lithium-Ion batteries.
Hi-Pa Drive™ from PML Flightlink Ltd
Hi-Pa Drive™ is a real revolution in motor technology and it’s a British innovation to boot! With its integrated motor and drive electronics in one single unit it produces an ultra high power density - up to 20 times more than conventional systems.
The compact, energy-efficient, electric wheel motors produce unrivalled levels of torque with internal heavy-duty tapered roller bearings that can withstand heavy radial loads for robust use. Yet they achieve the power to weight ratio important for the performance sports car capability of the Lightning
Other features include total weather proofing, total energy transfer and several levels of redundancy, so any single failure will not prevent the vehicle from operating safely.
Carbon fibre/Kevlar® composite technology in association with Amber Composites and Technical Resin Bonders
The Lightning bodywork will incorporate aluminium honeycomb crushable impact cells. This composite monocoque structure uses the same technology that is used in Formula 1 motor racing to protect the driver. This material will be used in the front, rear and sides of the car s well as around the battery area
Regenerative braking
Upon braking, the car's kinetic energy is converted to heat through friction - throwing away the energy that was previously used to accelerate. In city driving, about 30 percent of a typical car's engine output is lost to braking.
When an electric vehicle is decelerating, it does not create friction and useless heat in order to slow down. Instead it reverses its electric motor turning it into an electric generator, creating electricity which is fed back into the battery and stored for future use. In fact any time an electric vehicle decelerates it causes the system to use the vehicle's momentum to generate electricity.
The Lightning Car Company
London, United Kingdom
Three wheel hybrid car
===================================================
Originally posted at http://www.gizmag.com/go/6842/
February 17, 2007 Venture Vehicles has formally announced in Los Angeles, the development of a revolutionary (not to mention very cool), 3-wheel, tilting, plug-in Hybrid vehicle under the working name VentureOne. It’s a two-passenger Hybrid vehicle that will get 100 mpg, accelerate from 0-60 in 6 seconds, will have a top speed of over 100 mph, while being priced at under US$20,000. In addition to the low-emission, flex-fuel Hybrid model, a zero-emission all-electric version is also being developed that will have an all-electric range of nearly 200 miles. A key feature of the VentureOne is the patented Dynamic Vehicle Control tilting technology from Dutch-based Carver Engineering that allows the body of the vehicle to actually tilt when going through turns while all three wheels maintain firm contact with the road. Carver already sells petrol-engined versions of the machine, and the Phiaro 3-wheeler is also closely based on the Carver. But a plug-in hybrid with a 200 mile electric range and sportscar performance is very enticing. Production is not scheduled until late 2008 and Venture Vehicles will initially offer two propulsion packages for the VentureOne: the hybrid E50 and Q100, and all-electric Venture EV model. The US$23,000 all-electric model will top the range while the E50 hybrid will sell for US$18,000 and the Q100 hybrid is expected to be priced under US$20,000.
“It’s a truly unique and innovative vehicle”, says Ian Bruce, one of the founding partners of Venture Vehicles. “With the same height and length as the MINI Cooper, the VentureOne will have both the performance of a sports car and the agility of a motorcycle... creating an incredibly exhilarating driving experience. The only way I can describe the sensation is comparing it to flying a jet fighter at two feet off the ground. Plus, this extraordinary performance combines the significant environmental benefits of a flex-fuel, plug-in Hybrid with a high level of affordability.” Two electric pancake motors will power the two rear wheels, with a small combustion engine providing on-road recharging. When garaged, it need only be plugged into a normal 110 outlet.
Safety is another crucial aspect of the VentureOne’s design. The vehicle will be surrounded by a steel “safety cell” providing overall protection, along with other important safety features typically found only in cars. Things like a driver’s airbag, front and side-impact protection, and rear bumper will be standard. A host of world-class partners in design, engineering and production are supporting the development of the VentureOne -- firms such as BMW DesignWorks, A123 Systems, Carver Engineering, Swift Engineering, Boshart Engineering and PML FlightLink. The VentureOne weighs approximately 1,200 pounds in prototype form, with an overall width of 48 inches, a length of 11' 8", and a 106 inch wheelbase. The engine is located in the rear of the vehicle at a low height. The passenger compartment and the front wheel tilt when cornering; however, the forces are aligned with the vertical axis of the driver’s body, resulting in the driver being pressed into the seat rather than pushed across it.
Although classified as a motorcycle according to the NHTSA (since it has three wheels), the VentureOne has an enclosed body. The reinforced roll-cage construction in combination with front-and-side-impact protection, and a highly efficient passenger restraint system, give the occupants a level of protection comparable to conventional cars — or statistically, 33 times the safety of a typical motorcycle.
Venture Vehicles plans to initially offer two propulsion packages for the VentureOne: the hybrid E50 and Q100, and all-electric Venture EV model. Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Prices (MSRP) will range from $18,000 for the E50, to $23,000 for the all-electric EV model – with a wide range of accessories available for each.
All three classes will incorporate the patented Dynamic Vehicle Control system, or DVC™, developed by Carver Engineering, which allows the vehicle to tilt up to 45° side-to-side at a rate of 85° per second. All three will also feature ventilated disc brakes and measure 3.5 meters in overall length.
The vehicles’ propulsion system is of a series hybrid design. The system consists of a small internal combustion engine connected to a 15 – 20 kW generator, two in-wheel 25 kW electric motors, a four gallon fuel tank, and a 3 kWh Li-Ion battery pack. The system is able to take energy normally lost as heat due to braking and return it to the battery, increasing overall system efficiency.
All three models will exceed 100mpg, with speeds of over 100 mph, and 0-60 in 6 seconds or less – a major breakthrough in the automotive industry.
====================================================================
Four wheel electric bicycle
=================================================
See http://www.rhoadescar.com/jumpqand.htm
Lightning Electric Car
=====================================
Originally posted at
http://www.motorcities.com/contents/07/2008-Lightning-GT-700hp-Electric-Sportscar-Update_07FAB152803685.html
the lightning takes the performance car market electric
The Lightning Car Company today announced its development of a range of 700 bhp Lightning electric cars, for the first time genuinely harnessing electric motive power and uniting it with class-leading sports car design, engineering and production.
The remarkable car range has been conceived to satisfy three essential criteria, namely to deliver a highly stylised, graceful sports car with cues hinting at the quintessential British treatment of Aston Martin or TVR while delivering an explosive, dynamic performance based on new breakthrough electric technologies that make the ownership experience quicker, easier and cleaner than traditionally fuelled cars.
The Lightning Car Company draws upon 25 years of automotive experience from design and engineering personnel whose industry experience includes McLaren, Lola, Ronart and Vanwall, as well as championing the adoption and use of new generation electric battery and motor technologies derived from application in the aerospace industry. The business owners jointly share a clear vision of an electric-powered future for high performance motoring.
The Lightning began life as a traditionally powered petrol vehicle in order to develop the car’s chassis dynamics. Battery and motor technology applications allow the handling characteristics of the car to be optimised. The chassis derives its inherent dynamic quality from its aluminium honeycomb and carbon composite monocoque structure, essentially a Formula One derived concept that blends low mass with high impact qualities.
Arthur Wolstenholme, Technical Director at Lightning explains, “Ten, or perhaps even five years ago, electric power was dismissed as a poor substitute for petrol, diesel or LPG. But the world has moved on significantly – from military and aerospace applications, electric motor and battery technologies have been developed that will enable the Lightning to demonstrate 700 plus bhp performance over a range that exceeds some of today’s petrol performance cars. What’s more, the Lightning is intended to compete with premium market sport cars, but our electric power should outstrip the response rates, torque characteristics and driveability of most exotic performance super cars. Electric power has truly arrived in the performance market.”
The Lightning is set to dismiss all the preconceptions about electric power. It will be there immediately, and in abundance, providing amazing responsiveness. And, with a chassis designed to be more than capable dynamically, will make a great point to point proposition to rival the established guard.
The Lightning will combine high performance electric motive power with an advanced regenerative energy system that recharges the car’s batteries under braking by capturing lost friction energy. This emerging technology utilised by Lightning in the road car sector will be adopted by Formula One from 2008 when KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems) become mandatory. The Lightning’s use of this technology enables the range of the car to be extended to over 250 miles/400km.
With concourse elegance, blistering performance (expected to be a 0-60 time of sub 4 seconds) and a ten minute charge time to sustain a 250 mile range, the ownership costs of the Lightning range are set to be significantly lower than traditional fossil fuelled vehicles, with exemption from road tax, congestion charging and an urban cycle energy cost estimated at 2.2p per mile, the Lightning could be as much as £10,000 per year cheaper to run than a Audi RS4 based on an average 20,000 miles of motoring.
There are 3 Lightning models planned, a Grand Tourer, a competent and quick car which maintains a depth of luxury and specification; the Lightning Sport is the GT’s lightweight, purposeful cousin, with the ability to achieve 0-60 in under 4 seconds. The third Lightning will be an extended range model, with the capability of reaching an estimated 250 miles on a single 10 minute charge.
The electric Lightning prototypes are now in development and pre-orders are being taken for 2008 delivery. Customised options for interior and exterior finishes and accessories will be available on a build to order basis.
THE ELECTRIC LIGHTNING - TOP 10 FEATURES
Ultra smooth 100% electric power (700+bhp) immediately from zero rpm
10 minute charge time for over 250 miles of motoring (GTSE model)
Uncompromising performance with 0-60mph in less than 4 seconds (GTS model)
State of the art NanoSafe™ battery system and Hi-Pa Drive™ electric motor technology
Full regenerative braking so the battery receives charge every time you slow down, travel downhill or simply coast
Commanding presence of carbon fibre/Kevlar hand-crafted bodywork
Clean technology means no congestion charge or road tax and the ultimate A grade green rating
Phenomenal economy up to 10 x cheaper to run than petrol
Safer with no large fuel tank, thermally stable batteries and a bodywork structure similar to that used in F1 to protect the driver
Luxury spec. interior – incorporating sat nav, ipod interface and virtual engine sound
MORE ABOUT ELECTRIC LIGHTNING TECHNOLOGY
NanoSafe™ from Altairnano Inc.
Until now, battery technology has hindered electric vehicle innovation. In 2000, US company Altairnano Inc. established a research programme to create an ultra safe, high power battery using cutting-edge Nanotechnology. The result of their hard work is the NanoSafe™ battery.
SAFER - NanoSafe™ batteries use nano titanate materials instead of graphite which makes them far more thermally stable - there are no toxics or heavy metals used in NanoSafe™ batteries.
LONGER-LASTING - NanoSafe™ batteries have a life expectancy of 12+ years, versus the 3-5 year life of other batteries. NanoSafe™ can retain up to 85% charge capacity after 15,000 charges.
FASTER CHARGE - NanoSafe™ batteries can be recharged in approximately 10 minutes, rather than the hours required by many other rechargeable batteries.
MORE POWERFUL - With instantaneous power even at extreme temperatures, NanoSafe™ batteries deliver power per unit weight and unit volume several times that of conventional Lithium-Ion batteries.
Hi-Pa Drive™ from PML Flightlink Ltd
Hi-Pa Drive™ is a real revolution in motor technology and it’s a British innovation to boot! With its integrated motor and drive electronics in one single unit it produces an ultra high power density - up to 20 times more than conventional systems.
The compact, energy-efficient, electric wheel motors produce unrivalled levels of torque with internal heavy-duty tapered roller bearings that can withstand heavy radial loads for robust use. Yet they achieve the power to weight ratio important for the performance sports car capability of the Lightning
Other features include total weather proofing, total energy transfer and several levels of redundancy, so any single failure will not prevent the vehicle from operating safely.
Carbon fibre/Kevlar® composite technology in association with Amber Composites and Technical Resin Bonders
The Lightning bodywork will incorporate aluminium honeycomb crushable impact cells. This composite monocoque structure uses the same technology that is used in Formula 1 motor racing to protect the driver. This material will be used in the front, rear and sides of the car s well as around the battery area
Regenerative braking
Upon braking, the car's kinetic energy is converted to heat through friction - throwing away the energy that was previously used to accelerate. In city driving, about 30 percent of a typical car's engine output is lost to braking.
When an electric vehicle is decelerating, it does not create friction and useless heat in order to slow down. Instead it reverses its electric motor turning it into an electric generator, creating electricity which is fed back into the battery and stored for future use. In fact any time an electric vehicle decelerates it causes the system to use the vehicle's momentum to generate electricity.
The Lightning Car Company
London, United Kingdom
Three wheel hybrid car
===================================================
Originally posted at http://www.gizmag.com/go/6842/
February 17, 2007 Venture Vehicles has formally announced in Los Angeles, the development of a revolutionary (not to mention very cool), 3-wheel, tilting, plug-in Hybrid vehicle under the working name VentureOne. It’s a two-passenger Hybrid vehicle that will get 100 mpg, accelerate from 0-60 in 6 seconds, will have a top speed of over 100 mph, while being priced at under US$20,000. In addition to the low-emission, flex-fuel Hybrid model, a zero-emission all-electric version is also being developed that will have an all-electric range of nearly 200 miles. A key feature of the VentureOne is the patented Dynamic Vehicle Control tilting technology from Dutch-based Carver Engineering that allows the body of the vehicle to actually tilt when going through turns while all three wheels maintain firm contact with the road. Carver already sells petrol-engined versions of the machine, and the Phiaro 3-wheeler is also closely based on the Carver. But a plug-in hybrid with a 200 mile electric range and sportscar performance is very enticing. Production is not scheduled until late 2008 and Venture Vehicles will initially offer two propulsion packages for the VentureOne: the hybrid E50 and Q100, and all-electric Venture EV model. The US$23,000 all-electric model will top the range while the E50 hybrid will sell for US$18,000 and the Q100 hybrid is expected to be priced under US$20,000.
“It’s a truly unique and innovative vehicle”, says Ian Bruce, one of the founding partners of Venture Vehicles. “With the same height and length as the MINI Cooper, the VentureOne will have both the performance of a sports car and the agility of a motorcycle... creating an incredibly exhilarating driving experience. The only way I can describe the sensation is comparing it to flying a jet fighter at two feet off the ground. Plus, this extraordinary performance combines the significant environmental benefits of a flex-fuel, plug-in Hybrid with a high level of affordability.” Two electric pancake motors will power the two rear wheels, with a small combustion engine providing on-road recharging. When garaged, it need only be plugged into a normal 110 outlet.
Safety is another crucial aspect of the VentureOne’s design. The vehicle will be surrounded by a steel “safety cell” providing overall protection, along with other important safety features typically found only in cars. Things like a driver’s airbag, front and side-impact protection, and rear bumper will be standard. A host of world-class partners in design, engineering and production are supporting the development of the VentureOne -- firms such as BMW DesignWorks, A123 Systems, Carver Engineering, Swift Engineering, Boshart Engineering and PML FlightLink. The VentureOne weighs approximately 1,200 pounds in prototype form, with an overall width of 48 inches, a length of 11' 8", and a 106 inch wheelbase. The engine is located in the rear of the vehicle at a low height. The passenger compartment and the front wheel tilt when cornering; however, the forces are aligned with the vertical axis of the driver’s body, resulting in the driver being pressed into the seat rather than pushed across it.
Although classified as a motorcycle according to the NHTSA (since it has three wheels), the VentureOne has an enclosed body. The reinforced roll-cage construction in combination with front-and-side-impact protection, and a highly efficient passenger restraint system, give the occupants a level of protection comparable to conventional cars — or statistically, 33 times the safety of a typical motorcycle.
Venture Vehicles plans to initially offer two propulsion packages for the VentureOne: the hybrid E50 and Q100, and all-electric Venture EV model. Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Prices (MSRP) will range from $18,000 for the E50, to $23,000 for the all-electric EV model – with a wide range of accessories available for each.
All three classes will incorporate the patented Dynamic Vehicle Control system, or DVC™, developed by Carver Engineering, which allows the vehicle to tilt up to 45° side-to-side at a rate of 85° per second. All three will also feature ventilated disc brakes and measure 3.5 meters in overall length.
The vehicles’ propulsion system is of a series hybrid design. The system consists of a small internal combustion engine connected to a 15 – 20 kW generator, two in-wheel 25 kW electric motors, a four gallon fuel tank, and a 3 kWh Li-Ion battery pack. The system is able to take energy normally lost as heat due to braking and return it to the battery, increasing overall system efficiency.
All three models will exceed 100mpg, with speeds of over 100 mph, and 0-60 in 6 seconds or less – a major breakthrough in the automotive industry.
Mikulski supports CAFE standards
===========================================================================
Originally posted at:
http://mikulski.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=277468
Mikulski: Nation Needs Stricter Fuel Efficiency Standards
To watch a video of Senator Mikulski speaking on the floor, go to: http://www.mikulski.senate.gov/Videos/cafe.ram.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – On the floor of the Senate today, Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said the nation needs stricter fuel efficiency standards for automobiles in order to address the global warming crisis, America’s reliance on foreign oil and skyrocketing gas prices. The Senate is debating comprehensive energy legislation (H.R. 6), which includes language to require all cars and light trucks up to 10,000 pounds to have Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, and to increase the fuel efficiency by 4 percent every year after until 2030.
“I am a blue collar Senator. My heart and soul lies with blue collar America, so when automobile manufacturers told me they couldn’t meet the increased CAFE standards, I voted against the increase. But 20 years have gone by since the last increase in fuel efficiency standards,” said Senator Mikulski. “It’s time for our auto industry to make the changes they need to survive and that our planet needs to survive. We need a sensible energy plan that starts with conservation, that offers incentives for new renewable energy and that increases fuel efficiency standards.”
Senator Mikulski’s statement as delivered is below:
“Today, the Senate is trying to come up with an energy bill, and I know that Senators have been working very hard on all sides of the aisle to come up with consensus legislation that we can support. I really do support them. I want to particularly call to the attention of the Senate, the efforts of Senators Pryor, Levin and Stabenow to try to come up with a compromise on CAFE.
“But Mr. President, we are now where we are, and we are in a very important juncture in our history. Mr. President, you know me. I’m a blue collar Senator. My heart and soul lies with the blue collar American. I spent most of my life in a blue collar neighborhood. When Bethlehem Steel went on strike, my father gave those workers credit. When UAW [United Auto Workers] went on strike, my father and mother tried to smooth the way by helping them in the grocery store.
“My career and my public service is one of deep commitment to the working people. So when automobile manufacturers told me they couldn’t meet the increased CAFE standards, I listened, and I listened year after year. And now, I've listened for more than 20 years. When they told me they needed more time, I agreed. When they told me that an increase in CAFE standards was unattainable with existing technology, I voted against the increase to give more time so that we could come up with attainable and existing technology. But 20 years have gone by since the last increase in fuel efficiency standards. I was here when we voted for those CAFE standards. And now, after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change. Not any kind of change, Mr. President – a smart change, a feasible change, an affordable change. That’s why I support the energy bill that is before us. And I support the framework that’s been generally presented by Senator Feinstein of California.
“I know that American automobile manufacturers and their workers are true patriots. They want what is the best for our nation. They’ve faced challenges before and they have met them. And I believe that they will face these challenges now. I believe they know and want to build vehicles that are safer and more energy-efficient. The time has now come to increase fuel efficiency standards. We need a national effort, because they need to be able to help their own industry survive, and also because it is in the best interest of the nation.
“I believe that our world and our nation is facing a crisis. When you look at the increased price of gas at the pump, it’s hurting every single person. Talk to the family who it now costs $90 to fill up a minivan or a commuter, who has no other way to get to work than an automobile, who is now paying more to get to work than they are for their food bill. Like you, Mr. President, we know that small businesses need those vans to make those deliveries – whether they own a flower shop, whether they are a heating and air conditioning guy, whether it’s the plumber or the person delivering medicine to nursing homes. In my own state right now there are watermen, the fisherman out on the Chesapeake Bay, trying to harvest ever-diminishing crabs with ever-increasing fuel prices.
“Mr. President, it is time to conserve our energy resources and to deal with the crisis that we are facing. We know that energy and gasoline and petroleum products are in limited supply and are going up. We know that America’s dependence on foreign oil presents a very serious national security challenge. I’m on the Intelligence Committee and I know what these trans-national threats are. I know that energy independence is absolutely crucial to fighting the global war against terrorism.
...
“At the same time, we know there is a dangerous increase in the climate crisis that affects the life on our planet. It, too, is a national security issue because, make no mistake, the climate crisis will affect our food supply, will create a climate in which infectious disease will grow and natural disasters will increase. Now what can we do about it? How can we sign up to have a safer America, a safer planet? Well, I believe that the most sensible foundation of an energy plan must begin with conservation. We’ve got to make better use of what we’ve got in our homes, in our businesses, in our cars and in our airplanes. We also need incentives for new renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies that we use in our homes and our businesses. We need an increase in fuel efficiency standards for our vehicles on the road and our vehicles in the air.
“Now, I come back to fuel efficiency standards, known as CAFE. My heart and soul lies with the American worker. So I believe that anything that we do must preserve American jobs. But it also must achieve real savings in oil consumption. It also has to be realizable and achievable. That means a real technological ability to accomplish it. That means a reasonable lead time to adjust a company’s production. And I also believe we have to create incentives to enable companies to achieve those goals. I don’t believe in an industrial policy where we pick winners and losers – but if we’re going to pick a winning energy policy, we have to provide some type of help to the industry to help them get where we need for them to go.
...
“The time has come to raise the CAFE standards. But the time has come, also, to put our thinking caps on, to be an innovation society, and to come up with new ideas for efficiency, new technologies for energy efficiency, and new composite materials to make cars lighter, but keep them safe."...
===========================================================================
Originally posted at:
http://mikulski.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=277468
Mikulski: Nation Needs Stricter Fuel Efficiency Standards
To watch a video of Senator Mikulski speaking on the floor, go to: http://www.mikulski.senate.gov/Videos/cafe.ram.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – On the floor of the Senate today, Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said the nation needs stricter fuel efficiency standards for automobiles in order to address the global warming crisis, America’s reliance on foreign oil and skyrocketing gas prices. The Senate is debating comprehensive energy legislation (H.R. 6), which includes language to require all cars and light trucks up to 10,000 pounds to have Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, and to increase the fuel efficiency by 4 percent every year after until 2030.
“I am a blue collar Senator. My heart and soul lies with blue collar America, so when automobile manufacturers told me they couldn’t meet the increased CAFE standards, I voted against the increase. But 20 years have gone by since the last increase in fuel efficiency standards,” said Senator Mikulski. “It’s time for our auto industry to make the changes they need to survive and that our planet needs to survive. We need a sensible energy plan that starts with conservation, that offers incentives for new renewable energy and that increases fuel efficiency standards.”
Senator Mikulski’s statement as delivered is below:
“Today, the Senate is trying to come up with an energy bill, and I know that Senators have been working very hard on all sides of the aisle to come up with consensus legislation that we can support. I really do support them. I want to particularly call to the attention of the Senate, the efforts of Senators Pryor, Levin and Stabenow to try to come up with a compromise on CAFE.
“But Mr. President, we are now where we are, and we are in a very important juncture in our history. Mr. President, you know me. I’m a blue collar Senator. My heart and soul lies with the blue collar American. I spent most of my life in a blue collar neighborhood. When Bethlehem Steel went on strike, my father gave those workers credit. When UAW [United Auto Workers] went on strike, my father and mother tried to smooth the way by helping them in the grocery store.
“My career and my public service is one of deep commitment to the working people. So when automobile manufacturers told me they couldn’t meet the increased CAFE standards, I listened, and I listened year after year. And now, I've listened for more than 20 years. When they told me they needed more time, I agreed. When they told me that an increase in CAFE standards was unattainable with existing technology, I voted against the increase to give more time so that we could come up with attainable and existing technology. But 20 years have gone by since the last increase in fuel efficiency standards. I was here when we voted for those CAFE standards. And now, after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change. Not any kind of change, Mr. President – a smart change, a feasible change, an affordable change. That’s why I support the energy bill that is before us. And I support the framework that’s been generally presented by Senator Feinstein of California.
“I know that American automobile manufacturers and their workers are true patriots. They want what is the best for our nation. They’ve faced challenges before and they have met them. And I believe that they will face these challenges now. I believe they know and want to build vehicles that are safer and more energy-efficient. The time has now come to increase fuel efficiency standards. We need a national effort, because they need to be able to help their own industry survive, and also because it is in the best interest of the nation.
“I believe that our world and our nation is facing a crisis. When you look at the increased price of gas at the pump, it’s hurting every single person. Talk to the family who it now costs $90 to fill up a minivan or a commuter, who has no other way to get to work than an automobile, who is now paying more to get to work than they are for their food bill. Like you, Mr. President, we know that small businesses need those vans to make those deliveries – whether they own a flower shop, whether they are a heating and air conditioning guy, whether it’s the plumber or the person delivering medicine to nursing homes. In my own state right now there are watermen, the fisherman out on the Chesapeake Bay, trying to harvest ever-diminishing crabs with ever-increasing fuel prices.
“Mr. President, it is time to conserve our energy resources and to deal with the crisis that we are facing. We know that energy and gasoline and petroleum products are in limited supply and are going up. We know that America’s dependence on foreign oil presents a very serious national security challenge. I’m on the Intelligence Committee and I know what these trans-national threats are. I know that energy independence is absolutely crucial to fighting the global war against terrorism.
...
“At the same time, we know there is a dangerous increase in the climate crisis that affects the life on our planet. It, too, is a national security issue because, make no mistake, the climate crisis will affect our food supply, will create a climate in which infectious disease will grow and natural disasters will increase. Now what can we do about it? How can we sign up to have a safer America, a safer planet? Well, I believe that the most sensible foundation of an energy plan must begin with conservation. We’ve got to make better use of what we’ve got in our homes, in our businesses, in our cars and in our airplanes. We also need incentives for new renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies that we use in our homes and our businesses. We need an increase in fuel efficiency standards for our vehicles on the road and our vehicles in the air.
“Now, I come back to fuel efficiency standards, known as CAFE. My heart and soul lies with the American worker. So I believe that anything that we do must preserve American jobs. But it also must achieve real savings in oil consumption. It also has to be realizable and achievable. That means a real technological ability to accomplish it. That means a reasonable lead time to adjust a company’s production. And I also believe we have to create incentives to enable companies to achieve those goals. I don’t believe in an industrial policy where we pick winners and losers – but if we’re going to pick a winning energy policy, we have to provide some type of help to the industry to help them get where we need for them to go.
...
“The time has come to raise the CAFE standards. But the time has come, also, to put our thinking caps on, to be an innovation society, and to come up with new ideas for efficiency, new technologies for energy efficiency, and new composite materials to make cars lighter, but keep them safe."...
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Build Parks to Climate Proof Our Cities
====================================================================================
original post:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-05/uom-pt051407.php
"We discovered that a modest increase of 10% green space reduced surface temperatures in the urban environment by 4C, which would overcome temperature rises caused by global warming over the next 75 years, effectively 'climate proofing' our cities." said Dr Roland Ennos. by Staff Writers
Manchester UK (SPX) May 16, 2007
Scientists looking at the effect global warming will have on our major cities say a modest increase in the number of urban parks and street trees could offset decades of predicted temperature rises. The University of Manchester study has calculated that a mere 10% increase in the amount of green space in built-up centers would reduce urban surface temperatures by as much as 4C.
This 4C drop in temperature, which is equivalent to the average predicted rise through global warming by the 2080s, is caused by the cooling effect of water as it evaporates into the air from leaves and vegetation through a process called transpiration.
"Green space collects and retains water much better than the built environment," explained Dr Roland Ennos, a biomechanics expert in Manchester's Faculty of Life Sciences and a lead researcher in the team.
"As this water evaporates from the leaves of plants and trees it cools the surrounding air in a similar way to the cooling effect of perspiration as it evaporates from our skin."
"Urban areas can be up to 12C warmer than more rural surroundings due to the heat given off by buildings, roads and traffic, as well as reduced evaporative cooling, in what is commonly referred to as an 'urban heat island'," said Dr Ennos.
"We discovered that a modest increase of 10% green space reduced surface temperatures in the urban environment by 4C, which would overcome temperature rises caused by global warming over the next 75 years, effectively 'climate proofing' our cities.
Dr Ennos's collaborators in the School of Environment and Development are Professor John Handley, Director of the University's Centre for Urban Regional Ecology (CURE), and Dr Susannah Gill, now based at The Mersey Forest http://www.merseyforest.org.uk/
The research was part of the Adaptation Strategies for Climate Change in the Urban Environment (ASCCUE) project, which is an Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)-funded scheme under the wider umbrella 'Building Knowledge for Climate Change' (BKCC).
====================================================================================
original post:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-05/uom-pt051407.php
"We discovered that a modest increase of 10% green space reduced surface temperatures in the urban environment by 4C, which would overcome temperature rises caused by global warming over the next 75 years, effectively 'climate proofing' our cities." said Dr Roland Ennos. by Staff Writers
Manchester UK (SPX) May 16, 2007
Scientists looking at the effect global warming will have on our major cities say a modest increase in the number of urban parks and street trees could offset decades of predicted temperature rises. The University of Manchester study has calculated that a mere 10% increase in the amount of green space in built-up centers would reduce urban surface temperatures by as much as 4C.
This 4C drop in temperature, which is equivalent to the average predicted rise through global warming by the 2080s, is caused by the cooling effect of water as it evaporates into the air from leaves and vegetation through a process called transpiration.
"Green space collects and retains water much better than the built environment," explained Dr Roland Ennos, a biomechanics expert in Manchester's Faculty of Life Sciences and a lead researcher in the team.
"As this water evaporates from the leaves of plants and trees it cools the surrounding air in a similar way to the cooling effect of perspiration as it evaporates from our skin."
"Urban areas can be up to 12C warmer than more rural surroundings due to the heat given off by buildings, roads and traffic, as well as reduced evaporative cooling, in what is commonly referred to as an 'urban heat island'," said Dr Ennos.
"We discovered that a modest increase of 10% green space reduced surface temperatures in the urban environment by 4C, which would overcome temperature rises caused by global warming over the next 75 years, effectively 'climate proofing' our cities.
Dr Ennos's collaborators in the School of Environment and Development are Professor John Handley, Director of the University's Centre for Urban Regional Ecology (CURE), and Dr Susannah Gill, now based at The Mersey Forest http://www.merseyforest.org.uk/
The research was part of the Adaptation Strategies for Climate Change in the Urban Environment (ASCCUE) project, which is an Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)-funded scheme under the wider umbrella 'Building Knowledge for Climate Change' (BKCC).
A Greener Apple
==================================================================================
Apple has been criticized by some environmental organizations for not being a leader in removing toxic chemicals from its new products, and for not aggressively or properly recycling its old products. Upon investigating Apple’s current practices and progress towards these goals, I was surprised to learn that in many cases Apple is ahead of, or will soon be ahead of, most of its competitors in these areas. Whatever other improvements we need to make, it is certainly clear that we have failed to communicate the things that we are doing well.
It is generally not Apple’s policy to trumpet our plans for the future; we tend to talk about the things we have just accomplished. Unfortunately this policy has left our customers, shareholders, employees and the industry in the dark about Apple’s desires and plans to become greener. Our stakeholders deserve and expect more from us, and they’re right to do so. They want us to be a leader in this area, just as we are in the other areas of our business. So today we’re changing our policy.
Now I’d like to tell you what we are doing to remove toxic chemicals from our new products, and to more aggressively recycle our old products.
Removing Toxic Chemicals
Lead
Many of the dangerous chemicals we all want to eliminate from electronic products are found in very small amounts, but there’s one toxic substance that some companies still ship by the pound, and that’s the lead contained in their cathode-ray tube (CRT) displays. A typical CRT contains approximately 3 pounds (1.36 kg) of lead. In mid-2006, Apple became the first company in the computer industry to completely eliminate CRTs. The effect has been stunning — our first CRT-based iMac contained 484 grams of lead; our current third-generation LCD-based iMac contains less than 1 gram of lead.
Apple completely eliminated the use of CRTs in mid-2006.
A note of comparison — Dell, Gateway, Hewlett Packard and Lenovo still ship CRT displays today.
Cadmium
Hexavalent Chromium
Decabromodiphenyl Ether
The European Union is generally ahead of the U.S. in restricting toxic substances in electronic products. Their latest restrictions, known as RoHS, went into effect in July 2006. All Apple products worldwide comply with RoHS. Our manufacturing policies had already restricted or banned most of the chemicals covered by RoHS, and Apple began introducing fully RoHS-compliant products a year before the European deadline.
Almost a year later, however, some electronics companies can only claim their products are RoHS compliant because of certain little-known exemptions granted by the EU. Despite the tough restrictions of RoHS, these exemptions let companies ship electronics that still contain high concentrations of two hazardous substances — hexavalent chromium, the carcinogen against which Erin Brockovich famously campaigned, and the brominated flame retardant decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE), which is also feared to have adverse health effects. Apple phased out these and many other chemicals several years ago through design innovations and the use of higher quality metals and plastics.
Apple products met both the spirit and letter of the RoHS restrictions on cadmium, hexavalent chromium and brominated flame retardants years before RoHS went into effect.
A note of comparison — Some electronics companies, whose names you know, still rely on RoHS exemptions and use these toxic chemicals in their products today.
Arsenic
Mercury
Arsenic and mercury are industry standard materials used in liquid crystal displays (LCDs). Arsenic is added during the manufacturing of the high performance glass used in LCDs to prevent the formation of defects, and the fluorescent lamps used to illuminate LCDs contain minute amounts of mercury. Apple is on track to introduce our first displays using arsenic-free glass in 2007. A small number of high performance integrated circuits (ICs) will continue to contain a minute amount of arsenic as an element of the semiconductor substrate.
To eliminate mercury in our displays, we need to transition from fluorescent lamps to light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to illuminate the displays. Fortunately, all iPod displays already use LEDs for illumination, and therefore contain no mercury. We plan to introduce our first Macs with LED backlight technology in 2007. Our ability to completely eliminate fluorescent lamps in all of our displays depends on how fast the LCD industry can transition to LED backlighting for larger displays.
Apple plans to completely eliminate the use of arsenic in all of its displays by the end of 2008.
Apple plans to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of mercury by transitioning to LED backlighting for all displays when technically and economically feasible.
Polyvinyl Chloride
Brominated flame retardants
Some companies have made promises to phase out other toxic chemicals like polyvinyl chloride (PVC), a type of plastic primarily used in the construction industry but also found in computer parts and cables, and brominated flame retardants, or BFRs, which reduce the risk of fire. Apple began phasing out PVC twelve years ago and began restricting BFRs in 2001. For the past several years, we have been developing alternative materials that can replace these chemicals without compromising the safety or quality of our products. Today, we’ve successfully eliminated the largest applications of PVC and BFRs in our products, and we’re close to eliminating these chemicals altogether. For example, more than three million iPods have already shipped with a BFR-free laminate on their logic boards.
Dell and Lenovo have publicly stated that they plan to eliminate the use of PVC and BFRs in their products in 2009. Hewlett Packard has not yet publicly stated when they will eliminate the use of PVC and BFRs in their products, but has said that they will publish a plan by the end of 2007 which will state when in the future they will eliminate the use of these toxic chemicals in their products.
Apple plans to completely eliminate the use of PVC and BFRs in its products by the end of 2008.
A note of comparison — In 2007 HP stated that they will remove PVC from all their packaging. Apple did this 12 years ago. Last year, Dell began the process of phasing out large quantities of brominated flame retardants in large plastic enclosure parts. Apple’s plastic enclosure parts have been bromine-free since 2002.
In one environmental group’s recent scorecard, Dell, HP and Lenovo all scored higher than Apple because of their plans (or “plans for releasing plans” in the case of HP). In reality, Apple is ahead of all of these companies in eliminating toxic chemicals from its products.
Recycling Our Products (E-Waste)
Apple started recycling in 1994 and today we operate recycling programs in countries where more than 82% of all Macs and iPods are sold. By the end of this year, that figure will increase to 93%. How successful are these programs?
Currently, there is no industry standard way to measure the effectiveness of a company’s recycling programs. Dell has proposed a simple measure - assume a seven year product lifetime, and measure the percentage of the total weight you recycle each year compared to the total weight of what you sold seven years earlier. This makes sense to us, and has the added advantages of clarity and simplicity.
Apple recycled 13 million pounds of e-waste in 2006, which is equal to 9.5% of the weight of all products Apple sold seven years earlier. We expect this percentage to grow to 13% in 2007, and to 20% in 2008. By 2010, we forecast recycling 19 million pounds of e-waste per year — nearly 30% of the product weight we sold seven years earlier.
Weight Recycled as % of Past Sales
Chart shows an upward trend starting with 1.5% in 2002, up to an actual 9.5% in 2006, and an estimated 28% in 2010.
A note of comparison — the latest figures from HP and Dell are each around 10% per year, and neither company has yet disclosed plans to grow this percentage in the future. By 2010, Apple may be recycling significantly more than either Dell or HP as a percentage of past sales weight.
All the e-waste we collect in North America is processed in the U.S., and nothing is shipped overseas for disposal. We carefully review “environmental fate” submissions from each vendor, so we know how raw materials are handled at the end of the recycling process. We hold our recycling vendors to the highest environmental standards in the industry. In addition to annual compliance audits, we also review the performance of their downstream vendors. They must comply with all applicable health and safety laws, and we do not allow the use of prison labor at any stage of the recycling process.
Producers must also take responsibility for the design and material choices that create the product in the first place. It is these choices that fundamentally determine the weight and recycling value of material waste at the end of a product’s life. The iMac is a world-class example of material efficiency, having shed 60% of its weight since its debut in 1998. Our designs use aircraft-grade aluminum, stainless steel and high-grade plastics that are in high demand from recyclers, who recover and resell these raw materials for use in other types of products. Few of our competitors do the same.
Let me take a moment to talk specifically about iPods, even though they are included in the above data. All of Apple’s U.S. retail stores, which now number more than 150, take back unwanted iPods for environmentally friendly disposal free of charge. As an incentive, we even offer customers a 10% discount on a new iPod when they bring their old iPod to our stores for proper disposal. This summer we’re expanding it to Apple retail stores worldwide, and we’re also extending it to include free shipping from anywhere in the U.S. No product purchases are required for any of our free take back programs. In a few months, we think we’ll have ‘best of breed’ iPod recycling programs in the U.S., and we plan to continue to expand our free iPod recycling programs globally in the future.
By 2010, Apple may be recycling significantly more than either Dell or HP as a percentage of past sales weight.
All the e-waste we collect in North America is processed in the U.S., and nothing is shipped overseas for disposal.
Apple products are designed using high quality materials that are in high demand from recyclers.
The Future
Today is the first time we have openly discussed our plans to become a greener Apple. It will not be the last. We will be providing updates of our efforts and accomplishments at least annually, most likely around this time of the year. And we plan to bring other environmental issues to the table as well, such as the energy efficiency of the products in our industry. We are also beginning to explore the overall carbon “footprint” of our products, and may have some interesting data and issues to share later this year.
I hope you are as delighted as I was when I first learned how far along Apple actually is in removing toxic chemicals from its products and recycling its older products. We apologize for leaving you in the dark for this long. Apple is already a leader in innovation and engineering, and we are applying these same talents to become an environmental leader. Based on our tangible actions and results over time, hopefully our customers, employees, shareholders and professional colleagues will all feel proud of our ongoing efforts to become a greener Apple.
Steve Jobs
==================================================================================
Apple has been criticized by some environmental organizations for not being a leader in removing toxic chemicals from its new products, and for not aggressively or properly recycling its old products. Upon investigating Apple’s current practices and progress towards these goals, I was surprised to learn that in many cases Apple is ahead of, or will soon be ahead of, most of its competitors in these areas. Whatever other improvements we need to make, it is certainly clear that we have failed to communicate the things that we are doing well.
It is generally not Apple’s policy to trumpet our plans for the future; we tend to talk about the things we have just accomplished. Unfortunately this policy has left our customers, shareholders, employees and the industry in the dark about Apple’s desires and plans to become greener. Our stakeholders deserve and expect more from us, and they’re right to do so. They want us to be a leader in this area, just as we are in the other areas of our business. So today we’re changing our policy.
Now I’d like to tell you what we are doing to remove toxic chemicals from our new products, and to more aggressively recycle our old products.
Removing Toxic Chemicals
Lead
Many of the dangerous chemicals we all want to eliminate from electronic products are found in very small amounts, but there’s one toxic substance that some companies still ship by the pound, and that’s the lead contained in their cathode-ray tube (CRT) displays. A typical CRT contains approximately 3 pounds (1.36 kg) of lead. In mid-2006, Apple became the first company in the computer industry to completely eliminate CRTs. The effect has been stunning — our first CRT-based iMac contained 484 grams of lead; our current third-generation LCD-based iMac contains less than 1 gram of lead.
Apple completely eliminated the use of CRTs in mid-2006.
A note of comparison — Dell, Gateway, Hewlett Packard and Lenovo still ship CRT displays today.
Cadmium
Hexavalent Chromium
Decabromodiphenyl Ether
The European Union is generally ahead of the U.S. in restricting toxic substances in electronic products. Their latest restrictions, known as RoHS, went into effect in July 2006. All Apple products worldwide comply with RoHS. Our manufacturing policies had already restricted or banned most of the chemicals covered by RoHS, and Apple began introducing fully RoHS-compliant products a year before the European deadline.
Almost a year later, however, some electronics companies can only claim their products are RoHS compliant because of certain little-known exemptions granted by the EU. Despite the tough restrictions of RoHS, these exemptions let companies ship electronics that still contain high concentrations of two hazardous substances — hexavalent chromium, the carcinogen against which Erin Brockovich famously campaigned, and the brominated flame retardant decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE), which is also feared to have adverse health effects. Apple phased out these and many other chemicals several years ago through design innovations and the use of higher quality metals and plastics.
Apple products met both the spirit and letter of the RoHS restrictions on cadmium, hexavalent chromium and brominated flame retardants years before RoHS went into effect.
A note of comparison — Some electronics companies, whose names you know, still rely on RoHS exemptions and use these toxic chemicals in their products today.
Arsenic
Mercury
Arsenic and mercury are industry standard materials used in liquid crystal displays (LCDs). Arsenic is added during the manufacturing of the high performance glass used in LCDs to prevent the formation of defects, and the fluorescent lamps used to illuminate LCDs contain minute amounts of mercury. Apple is on track to introduce our first displays using arsenic-free glass in 2007. A small number of high performance integrated circuits (ICs) will continue to contain a minute amount of arsenic as an element of the semiconductor substrate.
To eliminate mercury in our displays, we need to transition from fluorescent lamps to light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to illuminate the displays. Fortunately, all iPod displays already use LEDs for illumination, and therefore contain no mercury. We plan to introduce our first Macs with LED backlight technology in 2007. Our ability to completely eliminate fluorescent lamps in all of our displays depends on how fast the LCD industry can transition to LED backlighting for larger displays.
Apple plans to completely eliminate the use of arsenic in all of its displays by the end of 2008.
Apple plans to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of mercury by transitioning to LED backlighting for all displays when technically and economically feasible.
Polyvinyl Chloride
Brominated flame retardants
Some companies have made promises to phase out other toxic chemicals like polyvinyl chloride (PVC), a type of plastic primarily used in the construction industry but also found in computer parts and cables, and brominated flame retardants, or BFRs, which reduce the risk of fire. Apple began phasing out PVC twelve years ago and began restricting BFRs in 2001. For the past several years, we have been developing alternative materials that can replace these chemicals without compromising the safety or quality of our products. Today, we’ve successfully eliminated the largest applications of PVC and BFRs in our products, and we’re close to eliminating these chemicals altogether. For example, more than three million iPods have already shipped with a BFR-free laminate on their logic boards.
Dell and Lenovo have publicly stated that they plan to eliminate the use of PVC and BFRs in their products in 2009. Hewlett Packard has not yet publicly stated when they will eliminate the use of PVC and BFRs in their products, but has said that they will publish a plan by the end of 2007 which will state when in the future they will eliminate the use of these toxic chemicals in their products.
Apple plans to completely eliminate the use of PVC and BFRs in its products by the end of 2008.
A note of comparison — In 2007 HP stated that they will remove PVC from all their packaging. Apple did this 12 years ago. Last year, Dell began the process of phasing out large quantities of brominated flame retardants in large plastic enclosure parts. Apple’s plastic enclosure parts have been bromine-free since 2002.
In one environmental group’s recent scorecard, Dell, HP and Lenovo all scored higher than Apple because of their plans (or “plans for releasing plans” in the case of HP). In reality, Apple is ahead of all of these companies in eliminating toxic chemicals from its products.
Recycling Our Products (E-Waste)
Apple started recycling in 1994 and today we operate recycling programs in countries where more than 82% of all Macs and iPods are sold. By the end of this year, that figure will increase to 93%. How successful are these programs?
Currently, there is no industry standard way to measure the effectiveness of a company’s recycling programs. Dell has proposed a simple measure - assume a seven year product lifetime, and measure the percentage of the total weight you recycle each year compared to the total weight of what you sold seven years earlier. This makes sense to us, and has the added advantages of clarity and simplicity.
Apple recycled 13 million pounds of e-waste in 2006, which is equal to 9.5% of the weight of all products Apple sold seven years earlier. We expect this percentage to grow to 13% in 2007, and to 20% in 2008. By 2010, we forecast recycling 19 million pounds of e-waste per year — nearly 30% of the product weight we sold seven years earlier.
Weight Recycled as % of Past Sales
Chart shows an upward trend starting with 1.5% in 2002, up to an actual 9.5% in 2006, and an estimated 28% in 2010.
A note of comparison — the latest figures from HP and Dell are each around 10% per year, and neither company has yet disclosed plans to grow this percentage in the future. By 2010, Apple may be recycling significantly more than either Dell or HP as a percentage of past sales weight.
All the e-waste we collect in North America is processed in the U.S., and nothing is shipped overseas for disposal. We carefully review “environmental fate” submissions from each vendor, so we know how raw materials are handled at the end of the recycling process. We hold our recycling vendors to the highest environmental standards in the industry. In addition to annual compliance audits, we also review the performance of their downstream vendors. They must comply with all applicable health and safety laws, and we do not allow the use of prison labor at any stage of the recycling process.
Producers must also take responsibility for the design and material choices that create the product in the first place. It is these choices that fundamentally determine the weight and recycling value of material waste at the end of a product’s life. The iMac is a world-class example of material efficiency, having shed 60% of its weight since its debut in 1998. Our designs use aircraft-grade aluminum, stainless steel and high-grade plastics that are in high demand from recyclers, who recover and resell these raw materials for use in other types of products. Few of our competitors do the same.
Let me take a moment to talk specifically about iPods, even though they are included in the above data. All of Apple’s U.S. retail stores, which now number more than 150, take back unwanted iPods for environmentally friendly disposal free of charge. As an incentive, we even offer customers a 10% discount on a new iPod when they bring their old iPod to our stores for proper disposal. This summer we’re expanding it to Apple retail stores worldwide, and we’re also extending it to include free shipping from anywhere in the U.S. No product purchases are required for any of our free take back programs. In a few months, we think we’ll have ‘best of breed’ iPod recycling programs in the U.S., and we plan to continue to expand our free iPod recycling programs globally in the future.
By 2010, Apple may be recycling significantly more than either Dell or HP as a percentage of past sales weight.
All the e-waste we collect in North America is processed in the U.S., and nothing is shipped overseas for disposal.
Apple products are designed using high quality materials that are in high demand from recyclers.
The Future
Today is the first time we have openly discussed our plans to become a greener Apple. It will not be the last. We will be providing updates of our efforts and accomplishments at least annually, most likely around this time of the year. And we plan to bring other environmental issues to the table as well, such as the energy efficiency of the products in our industry. We are also beginning to explore the overall carbon “footprint” of our products, and may have some interesting data and issues to share later this year.
I hope you are as delighted as I was when I first learned how far along Apple actually is in removing toxic chemicals from its products and recycling its older products. We apologize for leaving you in the dark for this long. Apple is already a leader in innovation and engineering, and we are applying these same talents to become an environmental leader. Based on our tangible actions and results over time, hopefully our customers, employees, shareholders and professional colleagues will all feel proud of our ongoing efforts to become a greener Apple.
Steve Jobs
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Curb Pollution with a Rain Garden: Singing in the Runoff
=================================================================================
You can single-handedly curb your city's pollution by building a lovely, native rain garden.
Published: February 21, 2007 @ 11:30 AM CST from the March/April 2007 issue of Natural Home.
By: Misty McNally
Booming urban growth, and the concrete that comes with it, has pushed storm drainage to its limits. Most cities channel rain overflow to holding ponds via drains and culverts, which then empty into fresh-water supplies. These manmade systems are designed to move water quickly, but several factors make all this drainage a problem. First, our urban areas produce a lot of runoff: An impervious surface such as a parking lot or rooftop generates nine times more runoff than a wooded area of the same size, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Second, pollutants such as motor oil, fertilizers, pesticides and debris also are washed down storm drains, accumulating and becoming more concentrated as they enter streams and ponds. This poisonous runoff pollutes drinking water supplies, harms fish and wildlife, kills native vegetation, and makes recreational areas unsafe.
Stop the cycle
In an effort to restore natural drainage patterns to cities across the country, many people are planting rain gardens. Planted in depressions in yards and along roadsides, rain gardens (also called “bioretention” areas) are designed to catch and divert runoff into the ground before it reaches storm drains. Rain gardens include plants, usually natives, that help percolate rain back through the soil. By doing so, they also filter many contaminants.Municipalities and watertreatment districts nationwide are promoting or subsidizing rain gardens. In Kansas City, where violent storms and flash floods are the norm, city organizers recently launched the 10,000 Rain Gardens project to address storm-drainage issues. This volunteer initiative includes an educational website and how-to classes, links with landscape professionals and hundreds of official participants (www.RainKC.com).
Scott Cahail, environmental manager of Kansas City’s Water Services, believes the initiative does more than prevent flooding. “We should value water as a resource, not see it as a nuisance,” he says. When people add rain gardens to their landscapes, they see the cycle of water conservation. Plus, native plants or flowers attract bees, birds and butterflies. “And on the practical side, it eliminates a patch of grass that needs mowing!” Cahail says. He estimates the cost of building a rain garden at $10 per square foot or even less-the environmental benefit is priceless.
BUILD A RAIN GARDEN IN 10 STEPS
Materials
o Shovel
o Ruler, stick or scrap wood (12 inches or longer)
o Pencil or marker
o Peat or compost
o Moisture-loving native plants (see"Selecting Native Plants")
o Shredded mulch
o Decorative rock
Step 1
Call before you dig. Contact your local utilities providers (electricity, gas, phone) to have them mark the location of underground wires or cables.
Step 2
Pick a location. A rain garden should be at least 10 feet from foundations, septic systems, utility lines and fence posts. You may wish to extend the length
of a downspout to reach the rain garden.
Step 3
Measure drainage rate. Dig a hole about the size of a large coffee can. Insert a ruler or stick into the hole. Fill the hole with water from a hose and mark the water level on the ruler. Wait four hours, then measure and mark the water level again. To determine the daily percolation, take the amount that has drained in four hours and multiply that by six. (Follow this formula: __ inches every 4 hours x 6 = __ inches every 24 hours)
Your rain garden should empty within 24 hours, so if you can drain 6 inches in that much time, dig 6 inches down. If the water in your test hole doesn’t drain well, consider different placement, or add gravel, compost, sand or peat (see Step 7).
Step 4
Determine the garden’s depth. It should be no more than 6 to 8 inches deeper than the surrounding soil, but you can place it in the bottom of a larger landscape depression or slope.
Step 5
Outline the garden location. Use string and wooden stakes or a garden hose to mark the general placement. Think about the land’s slope and where heavy rain may come in and flow out; don’t orient the garden so that overflow runs into your foundation or septic system.
Step 6
Dig in. The depression should be within your marked outline and to the depth you determined in the previous steps.
Step 7
Check the drainage rate again. Fill the depression with water, then measure the rate as in Step 3. If the drainage is poor, remove 3 to 4 more inches of soil and till in some sand, gravel, peat or compost to a depth of 1 foot, then check drainage again.
Step 8
Add vegetation. Put plants that can tolerate “wet feet” in the lowest places. Lightly cover with additional soil if necessary, but don’t fill the depression completely.
Step 9
Mulch to keep the weeds out.
Step 10
Water. Until the plants are established-especially if rain is scarce-it is beneficial to water to 1 inch at least once a week.If there’s regular overflow from the depression, you may wish to enlarge it or build a series of rain gardens with connecting drainage notches.
↓ Continue reading this article
Selecting Native Plants
The plants best adapted to your region will thrive in a rain garden. Look for flowers, shrubs and grasses that are not invasive or spreading, that thrive in damp conditions, and that are adapted to wet and dry cycles. For the deepest points in your rain garden, choose plants that can tolerate “wet feet”-that is, their roots enjoy boggy conditions. For suggestions, consult your local Cooperative Extension office, botanical garden or a nursery that sells native plants.
Resources
Cooperative Extension office locator
www.CSREES.USDA.gov/Extension
native plants
Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center
Native Plant Information Network/Native
Plants Database
(512) 292-4100
www.Wildflower2.org
native plants
Further Reading
10,000 Rain Gardens
http://www.rainkc.com/PDF/house%20and%20garden%20article.pdf
Rain Gardens of West Michigan www.raingardens.org
Rain Gardens: A How-To Manual for Homeowners
from the University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension (www.LearningStore.uwex.edu)
Rain Garden Design for Home Owners
from the Alabama Cooperative Extension
(www.ACES.edu)
Harvesting Rainwater for Landscape Use
by Patricia H. Waterfall
(University of Arizona Cooperative, http://Ag.Arizona.edu/pubs/water/az1052/harvest.html)
Composters.com
(800) 233-8438
www.Composters.com
Gardener’s Supply Company
(888) 833-1412
www.Gardeners.com
Master Garden Products
(800) 574-7248
www.MasterGardenProducts.com
Harvesting Rainwater for Landscape Use
by Patricia H. Waterfall
(University of Arizona Cooperative, http://Ag.Arizona.edu/pubs/water/az1052/harvest.html)
=================================================================================
You can single-handedly curb your city's pollution by building a lovely, native rain garden.
Published: February 21, 2007 @ 11:30 AM CST from the March/April 2007 issue of Natural Home.
By: Misty McNally
Booming urban growth, and the concrete that comes with it, has pushed storm drainage to its limits. Most cities channel rain overflow to holding ponds via drains and culverts, which then empty into fresh-water supplies. These manmade systems are designed to move water quickly, but several factors make all this drainage a problem. First, our urban areas produce a lot of runoff: An impervious surface such as a parking lot or rooftop generates nine times more runoff than a wooded area of the same size, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Second, pollutants such as motor oil, fertilizers, pesticides and debris also are washed down storm drains, accumulating and becoming more concentrated as they enter streams and ponds. This poisonous runoff pollutes drinking water supplies, harms fish and wildlife, kills native vegetation, and makes recreational areas unsafe.
Stop the cycle
In an effort to restore natural drainage patterns to cities across the country, many people are planting rain gardens. Planted in depressions in yards and along roadsides, rain gardens (also called “bioretention” areas) are designed to catch and divert runoff into the ground before it reaches storm drains. Rain gardens include plants, usually natives, that help percolate rain back through the soil. By doing so, they also filter many contaminants.Municipalities and watertreatment districts nationwide are promoting or subsidizing rain gardens. In Kansas City, where violent storms and flash floods are the norm, city organizers recently launched the 10,000 Rain Gardens project to address storm-drainage issues. This volunteer initiative includes an educational website and how-to classes, links with landscape professionals and hundreds of official participants (www.RainKC.com).
Scott Cahail, environmental manager of Kansas City’s Water Services, believes the initiative does more than prevent flooding. “We should value water as a resource, not see it as a nuisance,” he says. When people add rain gardens to their landscapes, they see the cycle of water conservation. Plus, native plants or flowers attract bees, birds and butterflies. “And on the practical side, it eliminates a patch of grass that needs mowing!” Cahail says. He estimates the cost of building a rain garden at $10 per square foot or even less-the environmental benefit is priceless.
BUILD A RAIN GARDEN IN 10 STEPS
Materials
o Shovel
o Ruler, stick or scrap wood (12 inches or longer)
o Pencil or marker
o Peat or compost
o Moisture-loving native plants (see"Selecting Native Plants")
o Shredded mulch
o Decorative rock
Step 1
Call before you dig. Contact your local utilities providers (electricity, gas, phone) to have them mark the location of underground wires or cables.
Step 2
Pick a location. A rain garden should be at least 10 feet from foundations, septic systems, utility lines and fence posts. You may wish to extend the length
of a downspout to reach the rain garden.
Step 3
Measure drainage rate. Dig a hole about the size of a large coffee can. Insert a ruler or stick into the hole. Fill the hole with water from a hose and mark the water level on the ruler. Wait four hours, then measure and mark the water level again. To determine the daily percolation, take the amount that has drained in four hours and multiply that by six. (Follow this formula: __ inches every 4 hours x 6 = __ inches every 24 hours)
Your rain garden should empty within 24 hours, so if you can drain 6 inches in that much time, dig 6 inches down. If the water in your test hole doesn’t drain well, consider different placement, or add gravel, compost, sand or peat (see Step 7).
Step 4
Determine the garden’s depth. It should be no more than 6 to 8 inches deeper than the surrounding soil, but you can place it in the bottom of a larger landscape depression or slope.
Step 5
Outline the garden location. Use string and wooden stakes or a garden hose to mark the general placement. Think about the land’s slope and where heavy rain may come in and flow out; don’t orient the garden so that overflow runs into your foundation or septic system.
Step 6
Dig in. The depression should be within your marked outline and to the depth you determined in the previous steps.
Step 7
Check the drainage rate again. Fill the depression with water, then measure the rate as in Step 3. If the drainage is poor, remove 3 to 4 more inches of soil and till in some sand, gravel, peat or compost to a depth of 1 foot, then check drainage again.
Step 8
Add vegetation. Put plants that can tolerate “wet feet” in the lowest places. Lightly cover with additional soil if necessary, but don’t fill the depression completely.
Step 9
Mulch to keep the weeds out.
Step 10
Water. Until the plants are established-especially if rain is scarce-it is beneficial to water to 1 inch at least once a week.If there’s regular overflow from the depression, you may wish to enlarge it or build a series of rain gardens with connecting drainage notches.
↓ Continue reading this article
Selecting Native Plants
The plants best adapted to your region will thrive in a rain garden. Look for flowers, shrubs and grasses that are not invasive or spreading, that thrive in damp conditions, and that are adapted to wet and dry cycles. For the deepest points in your rain garden, choose plants that can tolerate “wet feet”-that is, their roots enjoy boggy conditions. For suggestions, consult your local Cooperative Extension office, botanical garden or a nursery that sells native plants.
Resources
Cooperative Extension office locator
www.CSREES.USDA.gov/Extension
native plants
Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center
Native Plant Information Network/Native
Plants Database
(512) 292-4100
www.Wildflower2.org
native plants
Further Reading
10,000 Rain Gardens
http://www.rainkc.com/PDF/house%20and%20garden%20article.pdf
Rain Gardens of West Michigan www.raingardens.org
Rain Gardens: A How-To Manual for Homeowners
from the University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension (www.LearningStore.uwex.edu)
Rain Garden Design for Home Owners
from the Alabama Cooperative Extension
(www.ACES.edu)
Harvesting Rainwater for Landscape Use
by Patricia H. Waterfall
(University of Arizona Cooperative, http://Ag.Arizona.edu/pubs/water/az1052/harvest.html)
Composters.com
(800) 233-8438
www.Composters.com
Gardener’s Supply Company
(888) 833-1412
www.Gardeners.com
Master Garden Products
(800) 574-7248
www.MasterGardenProducts.com
Harvesting Rainwater for Landscape Use
by Patricia H. Waterfall
(University of Arizona Cooperative, http://Ag.Arizona.edu/pubs/water/az1052/harvest.html)
Diverse Crops to Grow Biofuel
====================================================================================
originally posted at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301625_pf.html
Corn Can't Solve Our Problem
By David Tilman and Jason Hill
Sunday, March 25, 2007; B01
The world has come full circle. A century ago our first transportation biofuels -- the hay and oats fed to our horses -- were replaced by gasoline. Today, ethanol from corn and biodiesel from soybeans have begun edging out gasoline and diesel.
This has been hailed as an overwhelmingly positive development that will help us reduce the threat of climate change and ease our dependence on foreign oil. In political circles, ethanol is the flavor of the day, and presidential candidates have been cycling through Iowa extolling its benefits. Lost in the ethanol-induced euphoria, however, is the fact that three of our most fundamental needs -- food, energy, and a livable and sustainable environment -- are now in direct conflict. Moreover, our recent analyses of the full costs and benefits of various biofuels, performed at the University of Minnesota, present a markedly different and more nuanced picture than has been heard on the campaign trail.
Some biofuels, if properly produced, do have the potential to provide climate-friendly energy, but where and how can we grow them? Our most fertile lands are already dedicated to food production. As demand for both food and energy increases, competition for fertile lands could raise food prices enough to drive the poorer third of the globe into malnourishment. The destruction of rainforests and other ecosystems to make new farmland would threaten the continued existence of countless animal and plant species and would increase the amount of climate-changing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Finding and implementing solutions to the food, fuel and environment conflict is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity. But solutions will be neither adopted nor sought until we understand the interlinked problems we face.
Fossil fuel use has pushed atmospheric carbon dioxide higher than at any time during the past half-million years. The global population has increased threefold in the past century and will increase by half again, to 9 billion people, by 2050. Global food and fossil energy consumption are on trajectories to double by 2050.
Biofuels, such as ethanol made from corn, have the potential to provide us with cleaner energy. But because of how corn ethanol currently is made, only about 20 percent of each gallon is "new" energy. That is because it takes a lot of "old" fossil energy to make it: diesel to run tractors, natural gas to make fertilizer and, of course, fuel to run the refineries that convert corn to ethanol.
If every one of the 70 million acres on which corn was grown in 2006 was used for ethanol, the amount produced would displace only 12 percent of the U.S. gasoline market. Moreover, the "new" (non-fossil) energy gained would be very small -- just 2.4 percent of the market. Car tune-ups and proper tire air pressure would save more energy.
There is another problem with relying on a food-based biofuel, such as corn ethanol, as the poor of Mexico can attest. In recent months, soaring corn prices, sparked by demand from ethanol plants, have doubled the price of tortillas, a staple food. Tens of thousands of Mexico City's poor recently protested this "ethanol tax" in the streets.
In the United States, the protests have also begun -- in Congress. Representatives of the dairy, poultry and livestock industries, which rely on corn as a principal animal feed, are seeking an end to subsidies for corn ethanol in the hope of stabilizing corn prices. (It takes about three pounds of corn to produce a pound of chicken, and seven or eight pounds to grow a pound of beef.) Profit margins are being squeezed, and meat prices are rising.
U.S. soybeans, which are used to make biodiesel, may be about to follow corn's trajectory, escalating the food vs. fuel conflict. The National Biodiesel Board recently reported that 77 biodiesel production plants are under construction and that eight established plants are expanding capacity.
In terms of environmental impact, all biofuels are not created equal. Ethanol is the same chemical product no matter what its source. But ethanol made from prairie grasses, from corn grown in Illinois and from sugar cane grown on newly cleared land in Brazil have radically different impacts on greenhouse gases.
Corn, like all plants, is a natural part of the global carbon cycle. The growing crop absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, so burning corn ethanol does not directly create any additional carbon. But that is only part of the story. All of the fossil fuels used to grow corn and change it into ethanol release new carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The net effect is that ethanol from corn grown in the Corn Belt does increase atmospheric greenhouse gases, and this increase is only about 15 percent less than the increase caused by an equivalent amount of gasoline. Soybean biodiesel does better, causing a greenhouse gas increase that is about 40 percent less than that from petroleum diesel.
In Brazil, ethanol made from sugar cane produces about twice as much ethanol per acre as corn. Brazilian ethanol refineries get much of their power from burning cane residue, in effect recycling carbon from the atmosphere. The environmental benefit is large. Sugar-cane ethanol grown on established soils releases 80 percent less greenhouse gases than gasoline.
But that isn't the case for sugar-cane ethanol or soybean biodiesel from Brazil's newly cleared lands, including tropical forests and savannas. Clearing land releases immense amounts of greenhouse gases into the air, because much of the material in the plants and soil is broken down into carbon dioxide.
Plants and soil contain three times more carbon than the atmosphere. The trees and soil of an acre of rainforest -- which, once cleared, is suitable for growing soybeans -- contain about 120 tons of organic carbon. An acre of tropical woodland or savanna, suitable for sugar cane, contains about half this amount. About a fourth of the carbon in an ecosystem is released to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide when trees are clear-cut, brush and branches are burned or rot, and roots decay. Even more is lost during the first 20 to 50 years of farming, as soil carbon decomposes into carbon dioxide and as wood products are burned or decay.
This means that when tropical woodland is cleared to produce sugar cane for ethanol, the greenhouse gas released is about 50 percent greater than what occurs from the production and use of the same amount of gasoline. And that statistic holds for at least two decades.
Simply being "renewable" does not automatically make a fuel better for the atmosphere than the fossil fuel it replaces, nor guarantee that society gains any new energy by its production. The European Union was recently shocked to learn that some of its imported biodiesel, derived from palm trees planted on rain-forest lands, was more than twice as bad for climate warming as petroleum diesel. So much for the "benefits" of that form of biodiesel.
Although current Brazilian ethanol is environmentally friendly, the long-term environmental implications of buying more ethanol and biodiesel from Brazil, a possibility raised recently during President Bush's trip to that country, are cloudy. It could be harmful to both the climate and the preservation of tropical plant and animal species if it involved, directly or indirectly, additional clearing of native ecosystems.
Concerns about the environmental effects of ethanol production are starting to be felt in the United States as well. It appears that American farmers may add 10 million acres of corn this year to meet booming demand for ethanol. Some of this land could come from millions of acres now set aside nationwide for conservation under a government-subsidized program. Those uncultivated acres absorb atmospheric carbon, so farming them and converting the corn into ethanol could release more carbon dioxide into the air than would burning gasoline.
There are biofuel crops that can be grown with much less energy and chemicals than the food crops we currently use for biofuels. And they can be grown on our less fertile land, especially land that has been degraded by farming. This would decrease competition between food and biofuel. The United States has about 60 million acres of such land -- in the Conservation Reserve Program, road edge rights-of-way and abandoned farmlands.
In a 10-year experiment reported in Science magazine in December, we explored how much bioenergy could be produced by 18 different native prairie plant species grown on highly degraded and infertile soil. We planted 172 plots in central Minnesota with various combinations of these species, randomly chosen. We found, on this highly degraded land, that the plots planted with mixtures of many native prairie perennial species yielded 238 percent more bioenergy than those planted with single species. High plant diversity led to high productivity, and little fertilizer or chemical weed or pest killers was required.
The prairie "hay" harvested from these plots can be used to create high-value energy sources. For instance, it can be mixed with coal and burned for electricity generation. It can be "gasified," then chemically combined to make ethanol or synthetic gasoline. Or it can be burned in a turbine engine to make electricity. A technique that is undergoing rapid development involves bioengineering enzymes that digest parts of plants (the cellulose) into sugars that are then fermented into ethanol.
Whether converted into electricity, ethanol or synthetic gasoline, the high-diversity hay from infertile land produced as much or more new usable energy per acre as corn for ethanol on fertile land. And it could be harvested year after year.
Even more surprising were the greenhouse gas benefits. When high-diversity mixtures of native plants are grown on degraded soils, they remove carbon dioxide from the air. Much of this carbon ends up stored in the soil. In essence, mixtures of native plants gradually restore the carbon levels that degraded soils had before being cleared and farmed. This benefit lasts for about a century.
Across the full process of growing high-diversity prairie hay, converting it into an energy source and using that energy, we found a net removal and storage of about a ton and a half of atmospheric carbon dioxide per acre. The net effect is that ethanol or synthetic gasoline produced from this grass on degraded land can provide energy that actually reduces atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.
When one of these carbon-negative biofuels is mixed with gasoline, the resulting blend releases less carbon dioxide than traditional gasoline.
Biofuels, if used properly, can help us balance our need for food, energy and a habitable and sustainable environment. To help this happen, though, we need a national biofuels policy that favors our best options. We must determine the carbon impacts of each method of making these fuels, then mandate fuel blending that achieves a prescribed greenhouse gas reduction. We have the knowledge and technology to start solving these problems.
tilman@umn.edu; hill0408@umn.edu
David Tilman is an ecologist at the University of Minnesota and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Jason Hill is a research associate in the Department of Applied Economics at the University of Minnesota.
====================================================================================
originally posted at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301625_pf.html
Corn Can't Solve Our Problem
By David Tilman and Jason Hill
Sunday, March 25, 2007; B01
The world has come full circle. A century ago our first transportation biofuels -- the hay and oats fed to our horses -- were replaced by gasoline. Today, ethanol from corn and biodiesel from soybeans have begun edging out gasoline and diesel.
This has been hailed as an overwhelmingly positive development that will help us reduce the threat of climate change and ease our dependence on foreign oil. In political circles, ethanol is the flavor of the day, and presidential candidates have been cycling through Iowa extolling its benefits. Lost in the ethanol-induced euphoria, however, is the fact that three of our most fundamental needs -- food, energy, and a livable and sustainable environment -- are now in direct conflict. Moreover, our recent analyses of the full costs and benefits of various biofuels, performed at the University of Minnesota, present a markedly different and more nuanced picture than has been heard on the campaign trail.
Some biofuels, if properly produced, do have the potential to provide climate-friendly energy, but where and how can we grow them? Our most fertile lands are already dedicated to food production. As demand for both food and energy increases, competition for fertile lands could raise food prices enough to drive the poorer third of the globe into malnourishment. The destruction of rainforests and other ecosystems to make new farmland would threaten the continued existence of countless animal and plant species and would increase the amount of climate-changing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Finding and implementing solutions to the food, fuel and environment conflict is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity. But solutions will be neither adopted nor sought until we understand the interlinked problems we face.
Fossil fuel use has pushed atmospheric carbon dioxide higher than at any time during the past half-million years. The global population has increased threefold in the past century and will increase by half again, to 9 billion people, by 2050. Global food and fossil energy consumption are on trajectories to double by 2050.
Biofuels, such as ethanol made from corn, have the potential to provide us with cleaner energy. But because of how corn ethanol currently is made, only about 20 percent of each gallon is "new" energy. That is because it takes a lot of "old" fossil energy to make it: diesel to run tractors, natural gas to make fertilizer and, of course, fuel to run the refineries that convert corn to ethanol.
If every one of the 70 million acres on which corn was grown in 2006 was used for ethanol, the amount produced would displace only 12 percent of the U.S. gasoline market. Moreover, the "new" (non-fossil) energy gained would be very small -- just 2.4 percent of the market. Car tune-ups and proper tire air pressure would save more energy.
There is another problem with relying on a food-based biofuel, such as corn ethanol, as the poor of Mexico can attest. In recent months, soaring corn prices, sparked by demand from ethanol plants, have doubled the price of tortillas, a staple food. Tens of thousands of Mexico City's poor recently protested this "ethanol tax" in the streets.
In the United States, the protests have also begun -- in Congress. Representatives of the dairy, poultry and livestock industries, which rely on corn as a principal animal feed, are seeking an end to subsidies for corn ethanol in the hope of stabilizing corn prices. (It takes about three pounds of corn to produce a pound of chicken, and seven or eight pounds to grow a pound of beef.) Profit margins are being squeezed, and meat prices are rising.
U.S. soybeans, which are used to make biodiesel, may be about to follow corn's trajectory, escalating the food vs. fuel conflict. The National Biodiesel Board recently reported that 77 biodiesel production plants are under construction and that eight established plants are expanding capacity.
In terms of environmental impact, all biofuels are not created equal. Ethanol is the same chemical product no matter what its source. But ethanol made from prairie grasses, from corn grown in Illinois and from sugar cane grown on newly cleared land in Brazil have radically different impacts on greenhouse gases.
Corn, like all plants, is a natural part of the global carbon cycle. The growing crop absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, so burning corn ethanol does not directly create any additional carbon. But that is only part of the story. All of the fossil fuels used to grow corn and change it into ethanol release new carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The net effect is that ethanol from corn grown in the Corn Belt does increase atmospheric greenhouse gases, and this increase is only about 15 percent less than the increase caused by an equivalent amount of gasoline. Soybean biodiesel does better, causing a greenhouse gas increase that is about 40 percent less than that from petroleum diesel.
In Brazil, ethanol made from sugar cane produces about twice as much ethanol per acre as corn. Brazilian ethanol refineries get much of their power from burning cane residue, in effect recycling carbon from the atmosphere. The environmental benefit is large. Sugar-cane ethanol grown on established soils releases 80 percent less greenhouse gases than gasoline.
But that isn't the case for sugar-cane ethanol or soybean biodiesel from Brazil's newly cleared lands, including tropical forests and savannas. Clearing land releases immense amounts of greenhouse gases into the air, because much of the material in the plants and soil is broken down into carbon dioxide.
Plants and soil contain three times more carbon than the atmosphere. The trees and soil of an acre of rainforest -- which, once cleared, is suitable for growing soybeans -- contain about 120 tons of organic carbon. An acre of tropical woodland or savanna, suitable for sugar cane, contains about half this amount. About a fourth of the carbon in an ecosystem is released to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide when trees are clear-cut, brush and branches are burned or rot, and roots decay. Even more is lost during the first 20 to 50 years of farming, as soil carbon decomposes into carbon dioxide and as wood products are burned or decay.
This means that when tropical woodland is cleared to produce sugar cane for ethanol, the greenhouse gas released is about 50 percent greater than what occurs from the production and use of the same amount of gasoline. And that statistic holds for at least two decades.
Simply being "renewable" does not automatically make a fuel better for the atmosphere than the fossil fuel it replaces, nor guarantee that society gains any new energy by its production. The European Union was recently shocked to learn that some of its imported biodiesel, derived from palm trees planted on rain-forest lands, was more than twice as bad for climate warming as petroleum diesel. So much for the "benefits" of that form of biodiesel.
Although current Brazilian ethanol is environmentally friendly, the long-term environmental implications of buying more ethanol and biodiesel from Brazil, a possibility raised recently during President Bush's trip to that country, are cloudy. It could be harmful to both the climate and the preservation of tropical plant and animal species if it involved, directly or indirectly, additional clearing of native ecosystems.
Concerns about the environmental effects of ethanol production are starting to be felt in the United States as well. It appears that American farmers may add 10 million acres of corn this year to meet booming demand for ethanol. Some of this land could come from millions of acres now set aside nationwide for conservation under a government-subsidized program. Those uncultivated acres absorb atmospheric carbon, so farming them and converting the corn into ethanol could release more carbon dioxide into the air than would burning gasoline.
There are biofuel crops that can be grown with much less energy and chemicals than the food crops we currently use for biofuels. And they can be grown on our less fertile land, especially land that has been degraded by farming. This would decrease competition between food and biofuel. The United States has about 60 million acres of such land -- in the Conservation Reserve Program, road edge rights-of-way and abandoned farmlands.
In a 10-year experiment reported in Science magazine in December, we explored how much bioenergy could be produced by 18 different native prairie plant species grown on highly degraded and infertile soil. We planted 172 plots in central Minnesota with various combinations of these species, randomly chosen. We found, on this highly degraded land, that the plots planted with mixtures of many native prairie perennial species yielded 238 percent more bioenergy than those planted with single species. High plant diversity led to high productivity, and little fertilizer or chemical weed or pest killers was required.
The prairie "hay" harvested from these plots can be used to create high-value energy sources. For instance, it can be mixed with coal and burned for electricity generation. It can be "gasified," then chemically combined to make ethanol or synthetic gasoline. Or it can be burned in a turbine engine to make electricity. A technique that is undergoing rapid development involves bioengineering enzymes that digest parts of plants (the cellulose) into sugars that are then fermented into ethanol.
Whether converted into electricity, ethanol or synthetic gasoline, the high-diversity hay from infertile land produced as much or more new usable energy per acre as corn for ethanol on fertile land. And it could be harvested year after year.
Even more surprising were the greenhouse gas benefits. When high-diversity mixtures of native plants are grown on degraded soils, they remove carbon dioxide from the air. Much of this carbon ends up stored in the soil. In essence, mixtures of native plants gradually restore the carbon levels that degraded soils had before being cleared and farmed. This benefit lasts for about a century.
Across the full process of growing high-diversity prairie hay, converting it into an energy source and using that energy, we found a net removal and storage of about a ton and a half of atmospheric carbon dioxide per acre. The net effect is that ethanol or synthetic gasoline produced from this grass on degraded land can provide energy that actually reduces atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.
When one of these carbon-negative biofuels is mixed with gasoline, the resulting blend releases less carbon dioxide than traditional gasoline.
Biofuels, if used properly, can help us balance our need for food, energy and a habitable and sustainable environment. To help this happen, though, we need a national biofuels policy that favors our best options. We must determine the carbon impacts of each method of making these fuels, then mandate fuel blending that achieves a prescribed greenhouse gas reduction. We have the knowledge and technology to start solving these problems.
tilman@umn.edu; hill0408@umn.edu
David Tilman is an ecologist at the University of Minnesota and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Jason Hill is a research associate in the Department of Applied Economics at the University of Minnesota.
Thermodynamics of Biofuel by Dr. Krassen Dimitrov
==============================================================================
originally posted at http://algae-thermodynamics.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
How can one not like GreenFuel Technologies? These people say they can convert emissions from power plants into biofuels using algae in proprietary photobioreactors, which has so far resulted in tons of positive press, awards and accolades. And why wouldn’t it? You take CO2-containing pollutants and turn them into valuable, clean-burning fuels, just when we are running out of oil? Could there BE a better idea than that?
Actually, I for one do have a better business idea. Why not just skip the algae altogether, take water and CO2, put them in some Magic-o-Matic reactor and Voila! get oil out of it?
There is just one slight problem with mine and GreenFuel’s ideas: they break the Law. Now, events from the past few years suggest that anytime the end result is something that looks like oil… well… breaking laws is sort of OK. The problem with this Law is that nobody has succeeded in breaking it, and boy, have people tried?! It has the pretentious name of First Law of Thermodynamics, and basically says that when you convert energy from one kind into another you cannot gain energy, you can only lose it.
In other words, if we picture different types of energy as rectangles, where the height is the amount of energy, then an energy conversion chain can only look like a telescope, where every rectangle is narrower than the previous one.
Now let’s look at what GreenFuel is trying to accomplish in each square meter of their reactors. First, they take solar energy and convert it into algal biomass via photosynthesis. Not all of the solar energy is suitable for photosynthesis, the part that can be used is called photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). You want to know how much PAR you get in your neck of the woods? Check this website, they have the best PAR maps out there.
The energy - in the form of biomass - that can be obtained via photosynthesis thus depends on the level of PAR and the efficiency of the conversion process Q.
Ebiomass = PAR x Q
Photosynthetic organisms use eight photons to capture one molecule of CO2 into carbohydrate (CH2O)n Given that one mole of CH2O has a heating value of 468kJ and that the mean energy of a mole of PAR photons is 217.4kJ, then the maximum theoretical conversion efficiency of PAR energy into carbohydrates is:
468kJ/(8 x 217.4kJ) = 27%
This is the ideal yield on PAR energy that is: (i) actually absorbed by the photosynthetic organism, (ii) in conditions where this organism operates with 100% photosynthetic efficiency (every photon that is absorbed is effectively used in photosynthetic reactions), and (iii) the organism does not waste any energy on any life-support functions, other than building biomass.
Ideally, you want your algae photobioreactor plant to be someplace sunny, and according to the maps, the sunniest place in America is in the Southwest. One little problem: algae require tons of water but in the southwest water is not that abundant and is already being used for more vital purposes, like the Bellagio fountains in Vegas, for example.
Let’s sidestep the water issue and look into a square meter of photoreactors installed in the Southwest that convert PAR into biomass. From the maps, the mean annual PAR is about 105J/s, which translates into 3.3GJ/yr (there are about 31.5 million seconds in a year). If this gets converted using the absolutely highest, super-duper, theoretical photosynthetic efficiency of 27% it will equal to 0.89GJ/yr of energy locked into biomass.
So far so good! Now this biomass has to be converted into biodiesel, which has an energy content of 126,200BTU/gal or roughly 0.133GJ/gal. A look at the last page (Examples 2 through 5) of the patent application filed by GreenFuel shows you that they plan on getting something like 342,000 bbl of biodiesel per year from a 1.3sq.km. plant built in the Southwest. By doing some simple math conversions (342,000bbl x 42gal/bbl x 0.133GJ/gal : 1.3M sq.m.) one gets to … tah-dah… 1.47GJ/yr from a square meter!
Now we’ve done it! The process gained energy out of nowhere, which is against the First Law. We can add this patent to the list of other similar claims, that have invariably failed to materialize.
So what is a more realistic outcome for the conversion of PAR into biodiesel? First of all, the maximum achievable efficiency is of course not 27%, but more like 10%. Why? Not all of the PAR gets into the reactor in the first place, there are all kinds of transmission, reflection, and shading losses. Then, not all of the light that gets in gets actually absorbed by algae. Photosynthetic organisms have no good use for the green light and don’t bother to absorb it but rather reflect it back (you wouldn’t guess that by their color, would you?). Finally, algae don’t pile up all of the converted energy in a pile of biomass; they use some for their own life’s needs (this comes especially handy at night-time).
Next we have the question of how to turn the biomass into biofuels. There are three ways to do it:
* pyrolysis: this is a process where you heat the biomass to anywhere from 300 to 800 oC to get liquid fuels, gas and char. If you ever run into somebody who’s into pyrolysis, chances are that you’ll be made to believe pyrolysis is a divine answer to everything that we’ll ever need. These people are true pyro(lys)maniacs. In reality, though there are no substantial commercial installations for pyrolysis and it is not clear how much net energy you gain after taking into account the heat that one needs to input in the process.
* fermentation: this is how the most ubiquitous biofuel – ethanol - is being made from the sugars in corn or sugarcane. In a theoretical 100% conversion from glucose, two of the six CO2 molecules that were captured by photosynthesis are released, and 118kJ per mole are lost to support the lifestyle of the fermenting microbes. That’s not so bad, but there is a better option (next).
* transesterification of lipids into biodiesel. Biodiesel is the highest-priced liquid fuel, it sells at wholesale for $2.50/gal, which translates into $18.80/GJ. The allure of biodiesel comes not only from these high selling prices, but also from its easy and efficient manufacturing by transesterification, which is becoming a well established method, with low capital costs and high efficiency.
What you need for transestrification is lipids (fats). Algae are thought capable of providing high lipid content, some species can accumulate 30-60% (mass) and in some cases higher lipid contents.
There’s a catch, though! These “fat” algae develop only in conditions of cellular stress, most notably lack of a nitrogen source needed for making proteins. Feeding algae with mostly sunshine and no nitrogen is the same as raising your kids only on sweets - they may grow fat but they are not healthy and don’t develop properly. Similarly, growing “fat” algae is not worth it as they don’t grow properly and their overall photosynthetic efficiency is poor.
A reasonable best-case estimate then, for a healthy and efficient algal culture is to put aside 50% of all captured energy into fats and the rest into other things needed for their well-being: proteins, carbohydrates, chlorophyll, etc. These can be used and sold, too, as by-products in a variety of schemes, however, they won’t be fetching the same juicy dollars per gigajoule as biodiesel does.
What we get as maximum achievable yield for our square meter in the Southwest is the following:
“OK,” one may say, “last time I checked sunshine was still free and the algae grow by themselves. You get what you can: 5%, 1%, half percent, whatever... who cares… you still make valuable biodiesel out of free stuff! You can’t beat that!”
To which someone - a little more perceptive - might reply, “The land is not free, you silly, how do you get enough land to grow enough algae to get enough lipids to turn it into enough biodiesel if one only gets so much from a square meter?”
In fact, both of these imaginary friends would be wrong. The biodiesel will be far from free, and the reason is not the cost of the land, as shocking as this may sound for anyone from the San Frascisco Bay Area. How so? We’ll let our favourite author on energy issues, Kenneth S. Deffeyes explain it:
“At typical efficiencies of 10%, a solar collector has to occupy five square miles to deliver 1,000 megawats. I can direct you to any of several Nevada basins where you can get the five square miles; your problem is the capital cost of paving five square miles with solar collectors” (from “Hubbert’s Peak”, 2001)
Building and operating the photobioreactors on significant acreage is quite expensive. How expensive? We don’t know, it is not on GreenFuel’s website and something tells us that it’s not going to be there anytime soon. Nevertheless, we can look at comparable examples of solar capture systems to get an idea.
First, here’s GreenFuel’s Photoshop idea of how their plant will look like next to a power plant:
This is something that looks somewhat similar, a nice greenhouse farm.
Finally, something that many would simply call a big field of mirrors, and in fact, it is exactly that:
These are all installations that convert sunlight into something useful. The algal photoreactors are intended to convert it into biodiesel, while the greenhouse turns it into flowers and vegetables: both systems use photosynthesis for the purpose. As for the mirrors, they are used to reflect the sunlight into a central receiver which gets heated and the heat is then turned into electricity – technology known as concentrated solar power (CSP).
Now let’s look with higher resolution at the individual elements.
Here’s what a GreenFuel reactor looks like from up-close:
Here’s a greenhouse; this is a somewhat fancy one, as it is made out of polycarbonate, the same material that GreenFuel uses for their reactors. It costs ~$200/sq.m., excluding installation.
Here’s the mirror example, which is a bit more sophisticated than what one may imagine initially, as it has a drive that shifts the mirror, so that it always faces the sun directly. Hence it is called a heliostat. Its costs in 2003 were estimated at $160/sq.m.
Which of these installations do you think would cost more to build and operate per square foot or square meter of surface coverage? The study goes into some detail about that, yet if we are talking about a ballpark figure, they probably will cost the same.
How much energy can each of these three installations capture and how much $$ can one make from them?
A report on the greenhouse industry for the state of New York in the year 2000, puts the average revenue per square meter at $161.77/sq.m./yr, with a gross margin of 24%, for gross profits of $38.82/sq.m./yr. That’s pretty typical for the industry. $161 looks like a very decent number, are greenhouses really so proficient at capturing Sun’s energy? No! The solar yield in a greenhouse is probably on the order of 0.5W/sq.m., (0.015GJ/sq.m./yr), or up to twenty times less than what we estimated for the best-case GreenFuel reactors. The key here is what this energy is being converted into. Turns out that a gigajoule of sunlight - captured into winter tomatoes or poinsettias around Christmas-time - has a very high value, which covers up the expenses for building and operating a greenhouse.
What about the CSP example? It produces electric energy, not vegetables, therefore should be a more relevant example, right? CSP power plants are not competitive at today’s prices of electricity, so there is not much hard data for analysis. However, if we look at this report, done by a respected consultancy, we will find some projections.
For the near term, a CSP power plant will break even if it could sell electricity at $0.14/kWhr ($38.89/GJ). These near-term plants are expected to convert sunlight into 46W/sq.m., or 1.46GJ/sq.m./yr of electricity. At $38.89/GJ, the dollar yield will be $56.77/sq.m./yr, which should be enough to cover the expenses to build and operate the plant.
For the medium term, CSP plants are expected to become both slightly cheaper to build and slightly more efficient in capturing sunlight. The corresponding projections are:
breakeven electricity costs of $0.08/kWh ($22.22/GJ);
solar-to-electric capture of 55W/sq.m. (1.73GJ/sq.m./yr),
resulting in breakeven cash yield of $38.15/sq.m./yr.
Remarkably similar to the greenhouse profits of $38.82/sq.m./yr!
Now let’s look at GreenFuel’s biodiesel. We saw above that the maximum achievable yield of biolipids is ~0.16GJ/sq.m./yr. If we assume that these get converted with 100% efficiency (a truly heroic assumption) into biodiesel , which currently sells at $18.80/GJ wholesale, then we get a paltry three dollars per square meter per year ($3/sq.m./yr)
Here are the results summarized in a table:
It is pretty clear from the table that we won’t be growing fuel crops in greenhouses anytime soon. Algal photobioreactors are still not worth it.
What biodiesel price would be required to achieve the same $38 /sq.m./yr cash yield as from a greenhouse, or from a projected medium-term CSP plant?
Here’s the calculation: $38/0.16GJ = $237.5/GJ,
which incidentally also equals to $31.60 per gallon of biodiesel or $1,327 per barrel. (The study uses more optimistic assumptions and arrives at ~$20/gal and ~$850/bbl).
Stunned?!
Twenty to thirty bucks per gallon?
Thousand bucks per barrel?
Well, as shocking as these prices are, they would still be lower than what you pay for soft drinks at major league ballparks, or for that most expensive fluid on the planet – ink for inkjet printers. If we are running out of oil and if the global warming is gonna get us, maybe it is worth paying up for a renewable fuel like biodiesel from algae… sigh?
Relax, folks! There are better options for both post-oil fuels and for CO2 mitigation. The study mentions some of them, and there are others that would certainly be economic at prices much lower than that.
How did we get there? How can a process and a company based on such feeble premises get funding, awards, and so much prominence in the media? Let’s again turn for explanation to Dr. Deffeyes:
“There will be numerous voices claiming to have the new, new thing to solve the energy problem. They are not necessarily con artists. Some of them convince themselves first, then they try to con the rest of us. They are their own first victims.”
In a free market world there is no Central Committee that says what makes sense and should be tried and what doesn’t and should be banned. If somebody promises to break the laws of physics and if somebody else is a GreenFool enough to invest their money there, so be it! No harm to the public, right?
Except that today many people don’t invest their own money. The contemporary world functions through a sophisticated web of financial intermediaries. When you put part of your salary into your company’s 410(k) or you make a donation to the endowment fund of your alumni college, the money flows through a chain of financial managers into mutual funds, hedge funds, venture capital funds, each with their own money managers.
These financial agents are, or course, motivated to make profits, however they are also getting paid a fixed percentage of the assets they manage. So, in other words, the upside is there for them, but there is no real downside: whether the investment fails or not, these people still get paid.
I happen to know the person responsible for the largest piece of money invested in GreenFuel - Jennifer Fonstad, who oversees the $6mln invested by Draper Fischer Jurvetson. Jennifer is a businesswoman with impeccable credentials, yet with a marked tendency to disregard the scientific reality.
Any ordinary person would be extra careful not to put their life’s savings into ventures that promise to break the laws of physics. If financial managers with Jennifer Fonstad’s high intelligence and Harvard degrees were as vigilant and careful when investing other people’s money, the world would be a much better place and no energy or environmental catastrophes would be a match to humankind.
Posted by Dr. Krassen Dimitrov at 4:12 AM 4 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
==============================================================================
originally posted at http://algae-thermodynamics.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
How can one not like GreenFuel Technologies? These people say they can convert emissions from power plants into biofuels using algae in proprietary photobioreactors, which has so far resulted in tons of positive press, awards and accolades. And why wouldn’t it? You take CO2-containing pollutants and turn them into valuable, clean-burning fuels, just when we are running out of oil? Could there BE a better idea than that?
Actually, I for one do have a better business idea. Why not just skip the algae altogether, take water and CO2, put them in some Magic-o-Matic reactor and Voila! get oil out of it?
There is just one slight problem with mine and GreenFuel’s ideas: they break the Law. Now, events from the past few years suggest that anytime the end result is something that looks like oil… well… breaking laws is sort of OK. The problem with this Law is that nobody has succeeded in breaking it, and boy, have people tried?! It has the pretentious name of First Law of Thermodynamics, and basically says that when you convert energy from one kind into another you cannot gain energy, you can only lose it.
In other words, if we picture different types of energy as rectangles, where the height is the amount of energy, then an energy conversion chain can only look like a telescope, where every rectangle is narrower than the previous one.
Now let’s look at what GreenFuel is trying to accomplish in each square meter of their reactors. First, they take solar energy and convert it into algal biomass via photosynthesis. Not all of the solar energy is suitable for photosynthesis, the part that can be used is called photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). You want to know how much PAR you get in your neck of the woods? Check this website, they have the best PAR maps out there.
The energy - in the form of biomass - that can be obtained via photosynthesis thus depends on the level of PAR and the efficiency of the conversion process Q.
Ebiomass = PAR x Q
Photosynthetic organisms use eight photons to capture one molecule of CO2 into carbohydrate (CH2O)n Given that one mole of CH2O has a heating value of 468kJ and that the mean energy of a mole of PAR photons is 217.4kJ, then the maximum theoretical conversion efficiency of PAR energy into carbohydrates is:
468kJ/(8 x 217.4kJ) = 27%
This is the ideal yield on PAR energy that is: (i) actually absorbed by the photosynthetic organism, (ii) in conditions where this organism operates with 100% photosynthetic efficiency (every photon that is absorbed is effectively used in photosynthetic reactions), and (iii) the organism does not waste any energy on any life-support functions, other than building biomass.
Ideally, you want your algae photobioreactor plant to be someplace sunny, and according to the maps, the sunniest place in America is in the Southwest. One little problem: algae require tons of water but in the southwest water is not that abundant and is already being used for more vital purposes, like the Bellagio fountains in Vegas, for example.
Let’s sidestep the water issue and look into a square meter of photoreactors installed in the Southwest that convert PAR into biomass. From the maps, the mean annual PAR is about 105J/s, which translates into 3.3GJ/yr (there are about 31.5 million seconds in a year). If this gets converted using the absolutely highest, super-duper, theoretical photosynthetic efficiency of 27% it will equal to 0.89GJ/yr of energy locked into biomass.
So far so good! Now this biomass has to be converted into biodiesel, which has an energy content of 126,200BTU/gal or roughly 0.133GJ/gal. A look at the last page (Examples 2 through 5) of the patent application filed by GreenFuel shows you that they plan on getting something like 342,000 bbl of biodiesel per year from a 1.3sq.km. plant built in the Southwest. By doing some simple math conversions (342,000bbl x 42gal/bbl x 0.133GJ/gal : 1.3M sq.m.) one gets to … tah-dah… 1.47GJ/yr from a square meter!
Now we’ve done it! The process gained energy out of nowhere, which is against the First Law. We can add this patent to the list of other similar claims, that have invariably failed to materialize.
So what is a more realistic outcome for the conversion of PAR into biodiesel? First of all, the maximum achievable efficiency is of course not 27%, but more like 10%. Why? Not all of the PAR gets into the reactor in the first place, there are all kinds of transmission, reflection, and shading losses. Then, not all of the light that gets in gets actually absorbed by algae. Photosynthetic organisms have no good use for the green light and don’t bother to absorb it but rather reflect it back (you wouldn’t guess that by their color, would you?). Finally, algae don’t pile up all of the converted energy in a pile of biomass; they use some for their own life’s needs (this comes especially handy at night-time).
Next we have the question of how to turn the biomass into biofuels. There are three ways to do it:
* pyrolysis: this is a process where you heat the biomass to anywhere from 300 to 800 oC to get liquid fuels, gas and char. If you ever run into somebody who’s into pyrolysis, chances are that you’ll be made to believe pyrolysis is a divine answer to everything that we’ll ever need. These people are true pyro(lys)maniacs. In reality, though there are no substantial commercial installations for pyrolysis and it is not clear how much net energy you gain after taking into account the heat that one needs to input in the process.
* fermentation: this is how the most ubiquitous biofuel – ethanol - is being made from the sugars in corn or sugarcane. In a theoretical 100% conversion from glucose, two of the six CO2 molecules that were captured by photosynthesis are released, and 118kJ per mole are lost to support the lifestyle of the fermenting microbes. That’s not so bad, but there is a better option (next).
* transesterification of lipids into biodiesel. Biodiesel is the highest-priced liquid fuel, it sells at wholesale for $2.50/gal, which translates into $18.80/GJ. The allure of biodiesel comes not only from these high selling prices, but also from its easy and efficient manufacturing by transesterification, which is becoming a well established method, with low capital costs and high efficiency.
What you need for transestrification is lipids (fats). Algae are thought capable of providing high lipid content, some species can accumulate 30-60% (mass) and in some cases higher lipid contents.
There’s a catch, though! These “fat” algae develop only in conditions of cellular stress, most notably lack of a nitrogen source needed for making proteins. Feeding algae with mostly sunshine and no nitrogen is the same as raising your kids only on sweets - they may grow fat but they are not healthy and don’t develop properly. Similarly, growing “fat” algae is not worth it as they don’t grow properly and their overall photosynthetic efficiency is poor.
A reasonable best-case estimate then, for a healthy and efficient algal culture is to put aside 50% of all captured energy into fats and the rest into other things needed for their well-being: proteins, carbohydrates, chlorophyll, etc. These can be used and sold, too, as by-products in a variety of schemes, however, they won’t be fetching the same juicy dollars per gigajoule as biodiesel does.
What we get as maximum achievable yield for our square meter in the Southwest is the following:
“OK,” one may say, “last time I checked sunshine was still free and the algae grow by themselves. You get what you can: 5%, 1%, half percent, whatever... who cares… you still make valuable biodiesel out of free stuff! You can’t beat that!”
To which someone - a little more perceptive - might reply, “The land is not free, you silly, how do you get enough land to grow enough algae to get enough lipids to turn it into enough biodiesel if one only gets so much from a square meter?”
In fact, both of these imaginary friends would be wrong. The biodiesel will be far from free, and the reason is not the cost of the land, as shocking as this may sound for anyone from the San Frascisco Bay Area. How so? We’ll let our favourite author on energy issues, Kenneth S. Deffeyes explain it:
“At typical efficiencies of 10%, a solar collector has to occupy five square miles to deliver 1,000 megawats. I can direct you to any of several Nevada basins where you can get the five square miles; your problem is the capital cost of paving five square miles with solar collectors” (from “Hubbert’s Peak”, 2001)
Building and operating the photobioreactors on significant acreage is quite expensive. How expensive? We don’t know, it is not on GreenFuel’s website and something tells us that it’s not going to be there anytime soon. Nevertheless, we can look at comparable examples of solar capture systems to get an idea.
First, here’s GreenFuel’s Photoshop idea of how their plant will look like next to a power plant:
This is something that looks somewhat similar, a nice greenhouse farm.
Finally, something that many would simply call a big field of mirrors, and in fact, it is exactly that:
These are all installations that convert sunlight into something useful. The algal photoreactors are intended to convert it into biodiesel, while the greenhouse turns it into flowers and vegetables: both systems use photosynthesis for the purpose. As for the mirrors, they are used to reflect the sunlight into a central receiver which gets heated and the heat is then turned into electricity – technology known as concentrated solar power (CSP).
Now let’s look with higher resolution at the individual elements.
Here’s what a GreenFuel reactor looks like from up-close:
Here’s a greenhouse; this is a somewhat fancy one, as it is made out of polycarbonate, the same material that GreenFuel uses for their reactors. It costs ~$200/sq.m., excluding installation.
Here’s the mirror example, which is a bit more sophisticated than what one may imagine initially, as it has a drive that shifts the mirror, so that it always faces the sun directly. Hence it is called a heliostat. Its costs in 2003 were estimated at $160/sq.m.
Which of these installations do you think would cost more to build and operate per square foot or square meter of surface coverage? The study goes into some detail about that, yet if we are talking about a ballpark figure, they probably will cost the same.
How much energy can each of these three installations capture and how much $$ can one make from them?
A report on the greenhouse industry for the state of New York in the year 2000, puts the average revenue per square meter at $161.77/sq.m./yr, with a gross margin of 24%, for gross profits of $38.82/sq.m./yr. That’s pretty typical for the industry. $161 looks like a very decent number, are greenhouses really so proficient at capturing Sun’s energy? No! The solar yield in a greenhouse is probably on the order of 0.5W/sq.m., (0.015GJ/sq.m./yr), or up to twenty times less than what we estimated for the best-case GreenFuel reactors. The key here is what this energy is being converted into. Turns out that a gigajoule of sunlight - captured into winter tomatoes or poinsettias around Christmas-time - has a very high value, which covers up the expenses for building and operating a greenhouse.
What about the CSP example? It produces electric energy, not vegetables, therefore should be a more relevant example, right? CSP power plants are not competitive at today’s prices of electricity, so there is not much hard data for analysis. However, if we look at this report, done by a respected consultancy, we will find some projections.
For the near term, a CSP power plant will break even if it could sell electricity at $0.14/kWhr ($38.89/GJ). These near-term plants are expected to convert sunlight into 46W/sq.m., or 1.46GJ/sq.m./yr of electricity. At $38.89/GJ, the dollar yield will be $56.77/sq.m./yr, which should be enough to cover the expenses to build and operate the plant.
For the medium term, CSP plants are expected to become both slightly cheaper to build and slightly more efficient in capturing sunlight. The corresponding projections are:
breakeven electricity costs of $0.08/kWh ($22.22/GJ);
solar-to-electric capture of 55W/sq.m. (1.73GJ/sq.m./yr),
resulting in breakeven cash yield of $38.15/sq.m./yr.
Remarkably similar to the greenhouse profits of $38.82/sq.m./yr!
Now let’s look at GreenFuel’s biodiesel. We saw above that the maximum achievable yield of biolipids is ~0.16GJ/sq.m./yr. If we assume that these get converted with 100% efficiency (a truly heroic assumption) into biodiesel , which currently sells at $18.80/GJ wholesale, then we get a paltry three dollars per square meter per year ($3/sq.m./yr)
Here are the results summarized in a table:
It is pretty clear from the table that we won’t be growing fuel crops in greenhouses anytime soon. Algal photobioreactors are still not worth it.
What biodiesel price would be required to achieve the same $38 /sq.m./yr cash yield as from a greenhouse, or from a projected medium-term CSP plant?
Here’s the calculation: $38/0.16GJ = $237.5/GJ,
which incidentally also equals to $31.60 per gallon of biodiesel or $1,327 per barrel. (The study uses more optimistic assumptions and arrives at ~$20/gal and ~$850/bbl).
Stunned?!
Twenty to thirty bucks per gallon?
Thousand bucks per barrel?
Well, as shocking as these prices are, they would still be lower than what you pay for soft drinks at major league ballparks, or for that most expensive fluid on the planet – ink for inkjet printers. If we are running out of oil and if the global warming is gonna get us, maybe it is worth paying up for a renewable fuel like biodiesel from algae… sigh?
Relax, folks! There are better options for both post-oil fuels and for CO2 mitigation. The study mentions some of them, and there are others that would certainly be economic at prices much lower than that.
How did we get there? How can a process and a company based on such feeble premises get funding, awards, and so much prominence in the media? Let’s again turn for explanation to Dr. Deffeyes:
“There will be numerous voices claiming to have the new, new thing to solve the energy problem. They are not necessarily con artists. Some of them convince themselves first, then they try to con the rest of us. They are their own first victims.”
In a free market world there is no Central Committee that says what makes sense and should be tried and what doesn’t and should be banned. If somebody promises to break the laws of physics and if somebody else is a GreenFool enough to invest their money there, so be it! No harm to the public, right?
Except that today many people don’t invest their own money. The contemporary world functions through a sophisticated web of financial intermediaries. When you put part of your salary into your company’s 410(k) or you make a donation to the endowment fund of your alumni college, the money flows through a chain of financial managers into mutual funds, hedge funds, venture capital funds, each with their own money managers.
These financial agents are, or course, motivated to make profits, however they are also getting paid a fixed percentage of the assets they manage. So, in other words, the upside is there for them, but there is no real downside: whether the investment fails or not, these people still get paid.
I happen to know the person responsible for the largest piece of money invested in GreenFuel - Jennifer Fonstad, who oversees the $6mln invested by Draper Fischer Jurvetson. Jennifer is a businesswoman with impeccable credentials, yet with a marked tendency to disregard the scientific reality.
Any ordinary person would be extra careful not to put their life’s savings into ventures that promise to break the laws of physics. If financial managers with Jennifer Fonstad’s high intelligence and Harvard degrees were as vigilant and careful when investing other people’s money, the world would be a much better place and no energy or environmental catastrophes would be a match to humankind.
Posted by Dr. Krassen Dimitrov at 4:12 AM 4 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)