Planted in the New Mexico desert near Albuquerque, the six solar dish engines of the Solar Thermal Test Facility at Sandia National Laboratories look a bit like giant, highly reflective satellite dishes. Each one is a mosaic of 82 mirrors that fit together to form a 38-ft-wide parabola. The mirrors’ precise curvature focuses light onto a 7-in. area. At its most intense spot, the heat is equivalent to a blistering 13,000 suns, producing a flux 13 times greater than the space shuttle experiences during re-entry. “That’ll melt almost anything known to man,” says Sandia engineer Chuck Andraka. “It’s incredibly hot.”

The heat is used to run a Stirling engine, an elegant 192-year-old technology that creates mechanical energy from an external heat source, as opposed to the internal fuel combustion that powers most auto­mobile engines. Hydrogen gas in a Stirling engine’s four 95 cc cylinders expands and contracts as it is heated and cooled, driving pistons to turn a small electric generator. The configuration of the dish and engine represent the fruit of more than a decade of steady improvements, developed in collaboration with Arizona-based Stirling Energy Systems.

On a crisp morning this past January, Andraka and his colleagues fired up Dish No. 3. The temperature was around freezing, and the sky was 8 percent brighter than average—the contrast between the cold air and the hot sun helps the engine run more efficiently. When power began to flow from the 25-kilowatt system, it did so with the highest conversion efficiency ever recorded in a commercial solar device: 31.25 percent of the energy shining onto the giant dish flowed into the grid.

To Bruce Osborn, president and CEO of Stirling Energy, this merely confirmed something that he already knew: The system, which his company calls the SunCatcher, was ready to exit the laboratory. “The rocket science is already done,” he says. The challenge remaining is to turn the prototypes into a low-cost, mass-producible design—“just a question of good, old-fashioned engineering,” according to Osborn. To that end, Stirling Energy signed the two largest solar energy contracts in history with two Southern California utilities, promising to build up to 70,000 SunCatchers and provide power for a million homes. Construction starts next year.

Big promises from solar power companies are nothing new. “It is stern work to thrust your hand into the sun and pull out a spark of immortal flame to warm the hearts of men,” an AT&T publicity film crowed after the invention of the silicon photovoltaic (PV) cell in 1954. “Yet in this modern age, men have at last harnessed the sun.”

Well, sort of. The Bell Solar Battery, as it was called, had some successes—powering the first communications satellite, in 1962, for instance—but hopes of cheap, plentiful energy have remained elusive.

PV cells and concentrating solar thermal (CST), the two basic methods for harnessing the sun’s power, have made great strides since those early days. But inflation in the cost of raw materials, such as silicon, combined with decades of cheap fossil fuels has kept overall solar energy consumption in the U.S. at 0.08 percent. And a series of new technologies that looked promising in the lab have proved impractical on the open market, leaving many observers to conclude that the age of solar energy will always remain just around the corner.

Meanwhile, though, almost under the radar, a few solar technologies have reached maturity. A type of silicon-free solar panel, half as expensive as silicon cells, has rapidly turned Arizona-based First Solar into the biggest solar-panel maker in the country. And along with Stirling Energy’s SunCatcher, new CST designs promise to provide a steady flow of solar electricity—even at night.

Solar Thermal

Big power utilities love CST for two reasons, says Reese Tisdale, a senior analyst at Emerging Energy Research, based in Cambridge, Mass. “It’s large-scale and it’s [usually] steam-powered, so it’s not so different from the gas- and coal-fired plants they’re familiar with.” The idea is not new—in fact, nine CST plants with a combined capacity of 354 megawatts have been operating in the Mojave Desert since their construction between 1984 and 1991, powering the homes of 500,000 Californians and proving the design’s reliability. (An average coal plant produces about 670 Mw.) The plants use a “parabolic trough” design, with more than 900,000 mirrors, shaped like a skateboarder’s half-pipe in vast arrays over 1500 acres of desert. The mirrors adjust to track the sun across the sky, reflecting and concentrating its rays onto liquid-filled pipes. The hot liquid, in this case oil, then boils water, which produces steam to spin a turbine.

Progress on CST plants ground to a halt after natural gas prices plummeted in the 1990s. It wasn’t until last year that the next major plant in the United States opened: a 64-Mw parabolic trough system in Boulder City, Nev., called Nevada Solar One, built by the Spanish company Acciona. Now there are 13 other plants, totaling 5100 Mw, in advanced planning stages in ­Flor­ida, Arizona and California; most will use parabolic troughs. Stirling Energy pursued a different kind of system, one that offers more flexibility and better efficiency.

Bruce Osborn started his research career at Ford Motor Co., and the key advantage of his solar dish is one his former employers would understand. “Henry Ford used to say you can have your car in any color as long as it’s black,” Osborn says, “and that’s our approach, too.” The planned 900-Mw Stirling Solar Two plant near San Diego will eventually have as many as 36,000 identical dishes, and the 82 mirror panels that make up each dish come in only two shapes. That design choice causes a slight decrease in power output, in exchange for the advantages of low-cost mass production.

Parabolic Solar Trough Technology

Modularity has other benefits, too. Since each 25-kw SunCatcher has its own Stirling engine producing electricity, there’s no single point of failure. “If something goes wrong with one dish, it doesn’t matter,” Osborn says. In contrast, the thousands of mirrors in a parabolic trough plant all feed a central turbine, so when the turbine is down for maintenance, power production stops. The SunCatcher design also shortens the wait for power during construction: Electricity will flow once the first 40 are built—a “solar group” that can churn out 1 Mw.

The breakthrough efficiency of the dish results from focusing the sun’s rays on a single spot instead of on a long pipe, which allows temperatures to reach 1450 F, compared to 750 F for parabolic troughs. In addition, the Stirling engine has a relatively flat effi­ciency curve: It produces close to maximum output even when the sun is obscured or low in the sky. So while the record 1-hour effi­ciency achieved earlier this year was 31.25 percent, the SunCatcher’s full-year, sunrise-to-­sunset efficiency is still a respectable 24 to 25 percent, roughly double that of parabolic trough systems.

Another twist on CST designs confronts the challenge that dogs every solar power scheme: “When the sun sets, that’s it for the day,” as Tisdale puts it. “But in Arizona in midsummer, it’s hot as hades, so people have their a/c cranked until 9 or 10 in the evening.” A hot liquid can be stored more efficiently than electricity; the analogy used by one industry executive is that a $5 thermos can hold as much energy in the form of heat as a $150 laptop battery can store electrochemically. Two 50-Mw plants that should begin operations by the end of this year in Spain will operate on this principle, using what amounts to a giant thermos filled with molten salt.

In the U.S., a thermal storage facility is scheduled for completion in Gila Bend, Ariz., in 2011. The 280-Mw Solana plant, being built by Spanish company Abengoa Solar, will use a parabolic trough design, but will incorporate a thermal storage tank that can keep the plant running for 6 hours with no sun. “We could design a plant that runs 24 hours a day,” says Fred Morse, an adviser for Abengoa who was formerly the Department of Energy’s solar czar, “but that would make no economic sense.” Instead, the plant is designed to cover Arizona’s peak energy-use periods, when power is most expensive.

A Matter of Scale

How It Works: Parabolic Solar Trough

The enormous scale of the Abengoa and Stirling Energy plants provides an answer to skeptics who doubt whether a few rooftop panels here and there can ever play a meaningful role in the world’s energy portfolio. But size also creates its own set of problems. For one thing, the power has to be transmitted to where it’s needed, and the empty deserts best suited for sprawling CST plants tend to be in the middle of nowhere. The site of Stirling Energy’s future plant for the San Diego market currently has enough transmission capacity for 300 Mw, or 12,000 dishes. The remaining 24,000 dishes will be built only if San Diego Gas & Electric is able to complete a proposed 150-mile transmission line between the plant and the city.

Water use is another issue. CST plants with steam turbines can require hundreds of millions of gallons of water to cool their con­densers—a challenge in regions where water is already at a premium. In this respect, Stirling Energy’s hydrogen­-based system has a significant advantage, since it only uses water to rinse the mirrors every few weeks. Osborn estimates that the San Diego plant, when producing power for 500,000 households, would use the same amount of water as 33 average homes.

Utility-scale solar power also requires enormous capital, which keeps it out of reach of people in the developing world, where such solutions are desperately needed. That’s a challenge RawSolar, an MIT spinoff, is trying to meet with a dish that is just 12 ft. wide, and simple and cheap enough to make for stand-alone operation. The nonprofit Solar Turbine Group, another MIT spinoff, built an even more bare-bones mini-CST system in Lesotho last summer, using spare car parts for the heat engine.

The most natural fit for small-scale solar, though, is the good old photovoltaic cell. It takes in sunlight and spits out electricity with no moving parts, requires no water and can be situated wherever electricity is needed, to avoid transmission losses. PV panels can generate useful amounts of electricity even in the weaker sunlight of northern states where big CST plants aren’t practical. Also, they’re ideal for homeowners, since they are simple to install and maintain—in fact, integrated building materials like PV roof tiles will make new homes even easier to connect.

Thin-Film Photovoltaic Technology

In July, Southern California Edison installed the first of what will be 250 Mw worth of PV panels located on commercial rooftops throughout the utility’s territory, where power is most in demand. But instead of silicon, the panels were made of a thin film of cadmium telluride, or “cad-tel” for short. Thin-film PV has been touted for years as a cheaper replacement for traditional silicon cells, but past designs have had trouble scaling up to mass production. Cad-tel technology has “completely changed what people thought could be done with thin films,” says Larry Kazmerski, director of the National Center for Photovoltaics at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado.

How It Works: Photovoltaic Cells

First Solar, the company that made the panels, estimates its manu­facturing cost to be $1.14 per watt and falling, about half the cost of comparable silicon panels. As a result, Kazmerski says, “There’s a big turn happening.” First Solar quadrupled its manufacturing capacity from 2006 to 2007, to 396 Mw, and it expects to exceed 1000 Mw next year. Two years after its initial public offering, the company’s market value is over $20 billion—double that of General Motors.

Cad-tel isn’t the only promising thin-film technology on the market. Newer panels developed using a copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) semiconductor have efficiency ratings almost 30 percent higher than First Solar’s cad-tel PVs. The advances have sparked a flurry of startup companies. Venture capitalists are pouring in 20 to 100 times more money than government research funds are, Kazmerski says, creating what some are calling a dot.sun phenomenon.

California-based Nanosolar is among the companies racing to commercialize CIGS technology. But like First Solar, most of its sales have gone to European countries such as Germany and Spain, where long-established policies provide a stable, guaranteed price for solar power production. Here in the U.S., uncertainty looms about a 30 percent investment tax credit that is set to expire at the end of the year. For billion-dollar projects such as Abengoa’s Solana plant, extension of the tax credit is make-or-break: These projects simply won’t happen without an extension of at least eight years.

Ultimately, solar power will have to justify (and pay for) itself—and the market may be moving in that direction. The DOE predicts that solar electricity will be cheaper than the average grid price by 2015. What’s more, prices for natural gas have doubled in the past five years, coal has nearly tripled, and new nuclear plants won’t come on line for at least seven more years. Locking in a long-term contract with a solar plant whose fuel will never run out, on the other hand, is the very definition of energy security. “One thing we know about the sun,” Morse says, “is that the price never goes up.”

Source: Posted by Alex Hutchinson for PopularMechanics. [link to post]

A solar power milestone was reached when First Solar Inc brought its manufacturing costs for solar panels down to $1 per watt. But a study from the University of California and Lawrence Berkeley National Labs suggests that this might be the bottom for a price-point—if solar power is ever going to scale up to become competitive with other forms of energy. Here are the new challenges facing the solar industry and some suggestions to make a brighter future.

A long-sought solar milestone was eclipsed when Tempe, Ariz.–based First Solar Inc. announced that the manufacturing costs for its thin-film photovoltaic panels had dipped below $1 per watt for the first time. With comparable costs for standard silicon panels still hovering in the $3 range, it’s tempting to conclude that First Solar’s cadmium telluride (CdTe) technology has won the race. But if we’re concerned about the big picture (scaling up solar until it’s a cheap and ubiquitous antidote to global warming and foreign oil) a forthcoming study from the University of California–Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory suggests that neither material has what it takes compared to lesser-known alternatives such as—we’re not kidding—fool’s gold.

Even if the solar cell market were to grow at 56 percent a year for the next 10 years—slightly higher than the rapid growth of the past year—photovoltaics would still only account for about 2.5 percent of global electricity, LBNL researcher Cyrus Wadia says. “First Solar is great, as long as we’re talking megawatts or gigawatts,” he says. “But as soon as they have to start rolling out terawatts, that’s where I believe they will reach some limitations.”

Even the current rate of growth won’t be easy to sustain. Despite the buck-per-watt announcement, First Solar’s share price plummeted more than 20 percent on Wednesday, thanks to warnings from CEO Mike Ahearn about the effect of the credit crisis on potential solar customers—as much as 10 to 15 percent of current orders might default. He recently told analysts in a conference call that “as good as things look for the mid-term and beyond, the short-term outlook for the solar industry in our view has never looked more difficult.” (A transcript is available at SeekingAlpha.)

First Solar’s eventual goal is “grid parity,” a phrase that refers to making solar power cost the same as competing conventional power sources without subsidies. Right now the cost of making panels accounts for a little less than half the total cost of installation. The company estimates that it needs to get manufacturing costs down to $0.65 to $0.70 per watt, and other installation costs down to $1 a watt in order to reach grid parity—goals First Solar plans to reach by 2012.

The question, though, is whether First Solar or any other solar manufacturer would be able to handle the flood of orders that would ensue if they reached competitive cost. At that point, it comes down to a matter of having enough of raw materials. That is where the real limitations come to bear, according to a paper that will appear in the March issue of the journal Environmental Science & Technology. In the paper, Wadia and colleagues Paul Alivisatos and Daniel Kammen evaluated the global supplies and extraction costs for 23 promising photovoltaic semiconductor materials and found that the three materials that currently dominate the market—silicon, CdTe and another thin-film technology based on copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS)—all have limitations when ordered in mass. While silicon is the second-most abundant element in the Earth’s crust, it requires enormous amounts of energy to convert into a usable crystalline form. This is a fundamental thermodynamic barrier that will keep silicon costs comparatively high. Both CIGS and First Solar’s CdTe rank poorly in abundance and extraction cost, with CdTe ranking dead last in long-term potential based on current annual extraction rates.

That doesn’t mean these materials won’t play a significant role, Wadia says. “It’s great to see the success the thin-film and silicon companies have had in pushing the limits of how fast and how cheap they can make panels.” But it may also pay to devote some federal R&D funds to research on alternative materials that are abundant, nontoxic and cheap.

To that end, Wadia and his colleagues found that iron pyrite—better known as fool’s gold—was several orders of magnitude better than any of the alternatives, based on both cost and abundance. Copper sulfide and copper oxide were also attractive candidates. The problem with these materials is that they’re less efficient in converting the sun’s rays to electricity, and as a result have been the focus of considerably less research. But the Berkeley study accounts for this fact, and concludes that lower-efficiency materials that are cheaper and more abundant will ultimately serve the alternative energy market better.

Kammen, who is the founding director of Berkeley’s Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory and advised the Obama campaign on energy issues, still considers the First Solar dollar-a-watt announcement to be an exciting development. “It shows that the rapid and important expansion of the solar industry needs the sustained research and manufacturing expertise of globally leading companies like First Solar,” he says. “It also sets a new and critical bar for all companies to work to achieve.”

That good news wasn’t enough to save First Solar’s share price on Wednesday. But the message of the Berkeley study is that unlike the stock market, we need to think long-term, and plan for the solar power we want to see a decade or more in the future. And that means doing some painstaking basic research on neglected materials that, for now, cost a lot more than a dollar a watt.

Source: Posted by Alex Hutchinson for PopolarMechanics. [link to post]

Since plastics are a fundamental material in modern life, making their production more sustainable can have an important positive impact on the environment. Annual plastics consumption worldwide has increased twentyfold since the 1950s, reaching around 150 million tons. It has been estimated that producing 1 kg of the most common plastics requires the equivalent of 2 kg of petroleum for energy and raw material, and releases approximately 6 kg of carbon dioxide. Green plastics could hold great potential for alleviating these negative impacts. As noted by officials at Braskem, the leading petrochemical and plastics producer in Latin America, the development of bioplastics will not just contribute to the prevention of global warming and the depletion of petroleum resources;  its recyclable nature will also impact on waste management in urban areas and unlock the potential to revolutionize the cycle of energy production and usage in all aspects, creating a self re-enforcing cycle of producing, recycling and reusing.

Green plastics, also referred to as bioplastics, are made from 100% renewable feedstock (such as plant-based ethanol), have the same specifications of petrochemical plastics and are completely recyclable. Bioplastics do not necessarily have to be biodegradable. As Jeffrey Wooster, senior value chain manager at Dow Chemical, the largest producer of plastics in the world, observes: “It really is about carbon emissions,” and plastics produced from renewable sources have a net positive carbon footprint. Compared to the production of plastics derived from petroleum, which emits carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere, the production of green plastics actually absorbs CO2 during sugarcane field photosynthesis. Between 2.1 to 2.5 kg of CO2 are removed from the atmosphere for each 1 kg of green plastics manufactured.

Leading manufacturers Braskem and Dow agree that recyclable green plastics generally perform better than biodegradable alternatives in sustainability analyses. Biodegradable green plastics are less durable, cannot be easily disposed of because of the need to separate them from conventional recyclable material, and emit methane (a powerful greenhouse gas) when decomposing in landfills. On the other hand, green plastics effectively store the CO2 absorbed during photosynthesis for extended periods of time as it is recycled and used in different ways. At the end of their useful life, green plastics can be burned to recover their energy content.

According to officials at Braskem, the revolutionary aspect of these products is that they are renewable as opposed to biodegradable. In other words, they can be recycled without threatening the process, as would polylactic acid, for example, the most common biodegradable plastic produced from corn-based ethanol. At the end of its usable life, non-biodegradable bioplastics can be incinerated together with other urban waste to generate electricity or other types of energy. Considering the quickly dwindling sites for landfills in urban areas such as São Paulo and parts of Europe, the ability to sustainably incinerate waste and generate energy is also highly coveted.

The technology currently used in Brazil to manufacture green plastics is very efficient. Ethane, the raw material to make plastics, can be manufactured by simply removing one water molecule (H2O) from sugarcane ethanol through a dehydration process. In the end, the plastics produced have the same characteristics as conventional plastics derived from fossil feedstocks, such as naphtha or natural gas. Due to their characteristics, sugarcane ethanol-based plastics can compete favorably with conventional petroleum-based plastics and can even be sold at a premium to eco-minded consumers. Although no industry certification yet exists, carbon dating laboratories have been used to certify that the plastics produced are derived completely from renewable sources.

Plastics from Cornstarch

Brazil is not the only country where bioplastics are currently manufactured. In the United States, the technology has been around for more than a decade, with corn as the most commonly used feedstock. NatureWorks, a joint venture between Cargill and Toijin, already has a plant that can produce 140,000 tons of biodegradable plastics from cornstarch in Blair, Neb. Metabolix, of Cambridge, Mass., is in the process of developing a plant to produce biodegradable plastics made from cornstarch. Also, following its $8 billion strategy to double revenues from renewable sources by 2015, Dupont partnered with Australia’s Plantic Technologies to produce plastics from cornstarch. At the same time, several projects have also flourished in Europe. Innova Films of Britain is building a new plant to produce 28,000 tons of plastic film made out of wood cellulose, while Novamont of Italy has been manufacturing plastics from cornstarch and biodegradable polyester for more than 10 years.

However, production in these countries is less competitive in terms of cost and concentrated mainly on small-scale projects sponsored by specialized biotech companies. The recent increase in the price of oil has improved the cost competitiveness of renewable plant-based feedstock, particularly in Brazil, and encouraged large traditional petrochemical companies to embark on sizeable green plastics projects.

In June 2007, Braskem announced the successful production of the first internationally certified plastics made from sugarcane ethanol. One month later, Dow entered into a joint venture with Crystalsev, the leading Brazilian ethanol producer, to also produce bioplastics. Both companies have moved quickly to achieve commercial production. Braskem is now building a $300 million plant at its existing Triunfo complex with the capacity to produce 200,000 tons of green plastics per year. Expected to come online between 2010 and 2011, this will be the first facility of its kind to enter commercial operation. At the same time, Dow and Crystalsev are developing the first integrated facility (sugar cane plantation and ethanol mill along with a plastics manufacturing plant) to produce bioplastics. This facility will produce 350,000 metric tons of plastics and is expected to start production in 2011, becoming a key part of Dow’s growth strategy in Brazil.

Although the integrated facility will take longer to become operational, it will allow Dow and Crystalsev to take advantage of important synergies in the production process, such as the use of water that results from the conversion of ethanol into ethane and the co-generation of electricity using the byproducts of sugar cane production. Initially, Braskem will invest only in a plant to produce ethane from market-bought ethanol using this material as an input at one of its existing manufacturing plants. “We are pursuing this strategy in order to have first mover advantage in a booming market for environmentally friendly products,” says Manoel Carnauba, Braskem’s vice president of basic raw materials. Braskem’s second bioplastics plant, scheduled to start production between 2012 and 2014, will be a totally integrated facility in order to exploit production synergies.

As a domestic player, Braskem has knowledge of the local ethanol market and good relationships with suppliers. For Dow, entering into a joint venture with Crystalsev was the best way to take advantage of local ethanol production technology and access feedstock in high quantities. “Crystalsev has a leading edge in this business, a similar culture and compatible objectives, minimizing the risk associated in such a new thing,” says Alberto Ulriksen, polyethylene product director for Dow Latin America.

For Dow, the project first emerged as a way to build a plastics asset base in Brazil and ensure access to competitively priced feedstock. “We did not have access to feedstock: We had to buy the ethylene. That’s not the Dow model, really. The only way that we found out that we could actually set up in Brazil was via this ethanol feedstock. That was the main reason [for the project],” says Ulriksen. Nonetheless, sustainability goals also played a role in Dow’s entry decision. “One of the things that has attracted us very much is the sustainability part because it is breakthrough in terms of carbon footprint and has a high value in the market,” Ulriksen adds.

Braskem’s venture into bioplastics was not driven by the need to access competitively priced raw materials, but by the opportunity to capitalize on the increased demand for green products. Having achieved cost competitive production of sugarcane-based plastics, Braskem is seeking to achieve product differentiation and to create a niche market for its product. “Braskem is positioning its bioplastic as a premium product that will command a higher price than conventional plastic. This strategy has nothing to do with cost. It has to do with the additional value that the product will bring in capturing CO2 from the atmosphere and reducing the green house effect,” says Luiz Nitschke, Braskem’s biopolymer project director based in São Paulo. “Braskem expects its biopolymer [bioplastic] to sell for 50% more than the conventional petrochemical product.”

Dow will market its green plastics product under the same brand it uses for its fossil fuel-based plastic resins, Dowlex. Although this brand enjoys high recognition among industrial customers, it is not well known by end consumers. On the other hand, Braskem is working with the marketing departments of companies in the automotive, food packaging, cosmetics and personal-hygiene industries, which can use green plastics applications to profit from the increasing demand for sustainable products. “If Braskem and its partners are able to create marketing value and to communicate it correctly, the product will be profitable regardless of the evolution of oil prices,” argues Nitschke. In September 2008, the company signed a distribution agreement with Toyota Tsusho, the trading arm of the automobile manufacturer, for the sale of its future green plastics production to Asian clients. Braskem also recently announced the certification of another type of green plastics that can be used in the automotive industry.

Braskem has been producing small product quantities at its testing facilities and is already marketing the product using high visibility consumer goods and sporting events. In June 2008, in partnership with Brinquedos Estrela, a leading toy manufacturer in Brazil, Braskem started producing the game pieces for “Sustainable Monopoly,” an environmentally conscious version of the popular board game that is being sold in local Wal-Mart stores with great success. In November 2008, the Formula 1 Brazilian Grand Prix winner Felipe Massa received the first bioplastics trophy in the world made with Braskem’s green plastics.

As an emerging-market multinational company, Braskem sees green plastics as a way to achieve global leadership. The company’s ultimate goal is to become the leading green plastics producer in the world by leveraging its strong production base in Brazil, its first-mover advantage, and a technological edge built over more than 10 years of experience and important investments in R&D. Braskem sees a niche market in developed economies, particularly Europe and Japan, where studies have shown that consumers are willing to pay a premium for sustainable products and environmental regulations mandate the use of plastics made from renewable sources. According to company executives, Braskem has received solicitations for three times the volume it will be producing in 2010, or 600,000 tons. Still, this amount represents only 1% of the global plastics market.

For its part, Dow views its green plastics project in Brazil as one of the many innovative renewable strategies it is implementing around the globe. “This is like a drop in the ocean, but this drop has a greenish bluish color,” states Ulriksen, who suggests that green plastics production cannot possibly replace all of Dow’s fossil-based production, but it can certainly allow the company to enter the Brazilian polyethylene market. Nonetheless, Dow does not downplay the possibility of using Brazil as an export platform. According to Wooster, “Dow’s global distribution channels will always be available to take advantage of foreign markets.”

‘Brazil Chose Us’

Brazil offers an exciting proposition for Dow and Braskem to explore plastics production from renewable resources, as it has a competitive advantage over other countries where it costs more than twice to make the same amount of ethanol. “We didn’t choose Brazil, Brazil chose us,” adds Ulriksen as a way to describe the attractiveness of Brazil as a platform for the production of plastics made from renewable sources. “Brazilian sugar cane production is a much more efficient way to produce ethanol than growing corn in the United States would be,” says Wooster.

Brazil is, indeed, the leading and most efficient sugarcane producer in the world. Sugarcane in Brazil is used as the basic input towards a diverse range of value-added products such as food, biofuels, bioelectricity and, now plastics. Brazil began using ethanol as a fuel as early as the 1920s, gaining momentum during the 1970s oil crisis when the government introduced the ProAlcool Program. By providing tax breaks and subsidies to sugarcane farmers, investment flocked to the industry and large distilleries developed to convert the crop to ethanol, especially in the state of São Paulo. In the 1990s, the government withdrew its subsidies and lifted price controls on ethanol, creating the world’s first self-sustaining market. Brazilian ethanol is competitive with gasoline, assuming the price of oil is at least $40 per barrel.

Ethanol production is often criticized due to its alleged negative impacts on the food supply and the environment. However, these criticisms have no grounding in the case of Brazil. For starters, land is plentiful in Brazil, with ethanol production occupying only 1% of the country’s arable land. In addition, approximately 65% of recent sugarcane expansion has taken place in mostly degraded pasturelands. Finally, there is still significant room to increase the productivity of land used for cattle grazing, reducing pressures on land availability for other agricultural uses.

Ethanol production is also far from threatening the Amazon rainforest. Not only has the growth in plantation focused on South Central Brazil, approximately 1,555 miles from the Amazon, but also the climate and land conditions in the Amazon region make the production of sugarcane economically unviable. Contrary to conventional wisdom, ethanol production from sugarcane does not have a negative impact on the production of other agricultural goods. In fact, the production of both sugarcane and foodstuffs has increased steadily in Brazil in recent years. Brazil’s emphasis on transforming sugarcane production into a high-performing and sustainable agribusiness has resulted in the highest ethanol production yields in the world and enabled a parallel increase in the production of other agricultural crops, such as cereals and soybean. On average, the ethanol yield of Brazilian sugarcane is 6.8 thousand liters per hectare, compared to 5.5 thousand for European beet, and 3.8 thousand for U.S. corn. Furthermore, new technologies are expected to significantly increase sugarcane yields in coming years.

The use of leading-edge technology and highly efficient operations at distilleries also means that Brazilian sugarcane ethanol delivers a clear cost advantage. Production efficiencies keep costs low at $.23 per liter, compared to $.39 per liter for corn-based ethanol in the U.S. and $.52 per liter for wheat-based ethanol in Europe. These cost and resource advantages are attracting investor interest in the industry as well as increasing efforts by companies towards using ethanol to create products beyond fuel.

The country currently produces 487 million tons of sugarcane and 22 billion liters of ethanol. In the 2007-2008 sugarcane harvest, Brazilian ethanol production is expected to reach 22 billion liters. Throughout 2008, some 29 new distilleries are expected to come online, while investment in the industry is expected to total $33 billion through 2012. Dow and Braskem both plan to use around 300 liters of ethanol by 2012 to produce green plastics in Brazil.

As stated by Bruno Pereira, plastic product development manager at Dow, “there is nowhere else in the world where a renewable feedstock, available on this scale, is produced so responsibly,” thus confirming Brazil’s tremendous potential to become the leading global producer, not only of ethanol, but also of bioplastics. Even with the recent decrease in oil prices, bioplastics production in Brazil remains very attractive due to its cost competitiveness and positive demand drivers, such as increased consumer interest in environmentally friendly packaging and a greater emphasis on sustainability on the part of product manufacturers worldwide.

In the future, consumers will be able to drive cars that not only run on ethanol, but also are partially made from it; consumers will be able to buy alcoholic beverages in bottles made from alcohol and enjoy sugar candies wrapped in sugarcane plastics. However, there is still a long way to go. It is estimated that the annual global production of green plastics will increase to around one million metric tons by 2011, which represents only about 0.7% of the plastics used today. In fact, the 550 thousand metric tons of bioplastics that will be produced in Brazil by 2012 will meet less than 1% of world plastics demand.

Source: Written by Rosalía Morales, Daniel Pulido, Summer Ticas, and María Trigo. Publiched in Knowledge@Wharton. [link to post]

Posted in Eco Innovation, Future Trends Tagged: Bioplastics, Brazil ]]> http://ecokoncepts.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/the-brazilian-bioplastics-revolution/feed/ 2 ecokoncepts http://ecokoncepts.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/renewable-energy-in-china-a-necessity-not-an-alternative/ http://ecokoncepts.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/renewable-energy-in-china-a-necessity-not-an-alternative/#comments Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:19:29 +0000 Sunil Reddy M http://ecokoncepts.wordpress.com/?p=282 ]]> What role does renewable energy play in the world’s fastest growing economy? We have all heard about China’s prowess as an economic power, but not what its growth means for the country’s energy needs in the coming decades. China’s burgeoning consumption rate, its increase in heavy industry exports and a construction boom that has led the Chinese to nominate the “crane” as their national bird have fuelled a massive and increasing appetite for energy — intensified by the government’s balancing act of not imposing energy constraints while also seeking more energy sources.

Some predict that China will need up to US$3.7 trillion in investments to fuel this growth. Its energy use grew by 8.4% in 2007 compared to overall world demand growth of 2.4%. Clearly, exploring alternative energy sources is not a luxury based on environmental concerns, but an absolute necessity to simply provide enough energy for China. According to Yang Fu Qiang of the Energy Foundation, if China uses only traditional energy sources, “it simply will not have enough energy capacity for its population.”

Renewable energy in China, therefore, is not an alternative to traditional fuels, but rather an additional supplement. China has fed its growing energy demands for years through coal and oil, and it will certainly continue using those sources at similar levels. Given that coal currently makes up 76% of China’s primary energy production, oil makes up 13%, and renewable energy only 8%, the government’s plan is to increase renewable energy’s percentage contribution so that the absolute amount of energy generated can continue to rise.

So what has the Chinese government done to encourage renewable energy development? Chinese leaders — from those in the central government to those at local levels — have worked for years to address China’s rising energy needs. This initiative is particularly challenging given that power generation from renewable sources is expensive to implement and cannot yet produce at levels high enough to replace traditional energy sources. Despite these difficulties, the Chinese government has made a strong statement in its intention to integrate renewable energy into China’s national energy plans for the 21st century, most notably in the Renewable Energy Law of 2006. The government’s goals have been ambitious — one provision in the law requires 15% of all energy consumed in China to be renewable by the year 2020.

Given that target, which groups in China are ultimately going to lead the charge in developing renewable energy? In terms of funding and investments, the public and private sectors will both play a role. However, the extent to which the Chinese government is driving investments for renewable energy is astonishing. Because of profitability challenges, private investment is currently more focused on specific areas within renewable energy technology — for example, equipment manufacturing rather than energy production. As a result, China’s renewable energy sector is being driven primarily by public-sector spending to meet the goals set by the central government.

Massive Reserves of Cash

Although traditional Western views do not generally identify the government as the most qualified driver behind cutting-edge technological innovation, Chi Zhang, chief Asia economist at BP China and a leading expert on renewables, notes that the Chinese government has a massive reserve of cash to fund the renewable energy initiative not necessarily driven by profitability or private-sector participation. Concerns regarding consistently loss-making state-owned energy companies represent a very Western point of view, he adds. He believes that companies in China must be seen as part of the entire government system rather than as individual commercial entities. This is because the Ministry of Finance “balances the books” for unprofitable companies by funding individual losses at the end of the year. As a result, the government is not particularly concerned with ongoing losses at the individual company level, according to Zhang.

He elaborates on China’s ability to fund the renewable energy initiative: “Western countries are efficient, but not always effective. In China, you do not need to worry about efficiency [or lack of money]; you only need to worry about effectiveness.” Thus, the Chinese government has the funds to attack the energy issue with brute force and push towards the development of renewables. Given that the Chinese government-led effort is clearly very different from initiatives in many Western countries, it is important to understand China’s challenges from a different perspective.

China’s renewable energy policies target three areas: hydro, solar and wind. In terms of potential, China’s hydro energy future seems almost infinite. Already the global leader in hydro electricity, the country’s bountiful landscapes of rivers and streams present an untapped resource that will shape the face of its energy future. Currently, China’s hydro energy represents 23% of the nation’s growing electricity consumption and is second only to coal-generated electricity. Within this vast “green” promise, hydro energy is classified into two sources: small hydro plants, which produce 25 megawatts or less annually, and large hydro plants, such as the Three Gorges Dam in Hubei, the world’s largest hydro-electric power station.

In China, small hydro plants include more than 43,000 stations scattered across the country. The preponderance of these plants is directly related to transmission system needs and governmental tax policies. Although the large hydro plants can generate huge amounts of energy, the current electricity transmission systems prevent efficient transmission to rural countryside villages. As a result, the Chinese government fosters the development of small hydro plants in rural areas through tax incentives and relaxed constraints on bank loans. This environment encourages private companies to invest in the construction of small hydro plants, which then become the major source of small hydro funding. Joint ventures — such as the Manasi Number One Hydropower Project in Xinjiang, a province in Western China — are opportunities for private companies like Xinjiang Tianfu Thermal Power and the Tokyo Electric Power Company to build small hydro power stations.

In contrast, large hydro plants are few in number but provide 67.5% of the country’s hydro electricity. The construction of these large hydro plants is largely state-driven. According to Zhang, “only the Chinese government has the ability to build large hydro stations because only the government has the resources required to move people from their homes.” It follows that the financial backing behind large hydro stations is also government-driven. For example, the financing for the 3.5-GW Ertan Dam Hydropower station in Sichuan province involved substantial equity from three government entities. In addition, several Chinese hydropower projects are also taking advantage of the opportunity to sell Certified Emission Reductions (CER) Certificates to third parties in accordance with the Kyoto Protocol. With plans to open at least 13 major hydro power plants by 2020, it is clear that large hydro will constitute a majority share in China’s renewable energy progress.

In order to meet its 2020 goals, experts estimate the total required investment at US$127.8 billion for large hydro and US$38.8 billion for small hydro. For large hydro, the government will have to continue to provide direct investment. For small hydro, the government must encourage private investment. Utilizing this government-driven, mixed-financing solution will be crucial in reducing state fiscal pressure. Encouraging the continued growth of localized power generation will also compensate for the inefficiencies in the current Chinese power transmission systems.

Though hydropower remains the capacity leader in China, solar energy stands out as the fastest-growing clean-energy sector. The solar industry is expected to grow 40% per year over the next four years. However, some experts are quick to note that this growth will be less profitable than other areas of clean energy. Shawn Kim of Morgan Stanley Research believes that, “Solar offers a more compelling long-term growth opportunity than wind but at lower returns.”

Accordingly, despite mammoth growth prospects, solar energy within China remains an unsustainable energy source given its dependence on government subsidies. The current cost per watt of solar energy ranges between $3 and $4, while the approximate cost of traditional coal energy is as low as $1. Despite these cost challenges, investors are still betting on Chinese solar equipment manufacturing companies. “Solar remains one of the most promising areas of clean energy for investors today,” Kim observes.

As a reflection of this high potential, 10 Chinese solar module manufacturers have been listed on the public markets within the past five years. These companies have been the driving force behind solar in China and have seen the most financial success. Beginning with Suntech’s IPO on the NYSE in December 2005, China has seen a series of module manufacturers’ IPOs on global markets, including Trina Solar in 2006 and Yingli Green in 2007.

In addition to profitability challenges, solar power faces a number of other difficulties. Limits in the global supply of silicon, a key ingredient in module manufacturing, remains one of the greatest challenges facing solar energy today. As such, wafer manufacturers are feeling pressure from module manufacturers to become more cost-effective. Kim sees the industry moving forward, but only through continued innovation: “Cost reductions through new technologies or increased efficiency should continue to spawn new areas of demand over the coming decade.” Many photovoltaic (PV) wafer manufacturers will likely struggle with this inevitable technology shift.

Just as the government plays a crucial role in financing hydropower, it has also committed substantial funding to solar. The need for continued technological innovation means that investment in China’s solar energy is expected to total US$55.9 billion over the next 15 years. In 2007, the National Reform and Planning Commission launched an initiative to further the development of Chinese solar power with a 10 billion RMB (approximately US$1.46 billion) funding commitment.

As China’s energy needs continue to grow, government spending and private investment in solar energy manufacturing will continue to fuel technological advances. For private investors, profitability and the ability to connect energy generation to state power grids will continue to be significant obstacles. Despite the challenges solar energy faces and the ongoing need for government subsidies, experts predict that private investment in solar manufacturing, coupled with government-financed solar innovation, should remain strong.

Going with the Wind

With costs comparable to traditional sources of energy such as oil and gas, wind is seen as the most commercially viable clean energy source in China. Given that current installed wind capacity ranks second largest in Asia and fifth largest in the world, China has been aggressive in exploiting its vast wind resources. By 2020, the country is estimated to have an installed base of wind power totaling 100GW. This substantial growth is due primarily to abundant resources, a strong technology base and, most importantly, heavy government involvement.

The Chinese government has enacted a number of laws encouraging continued wind development. For example, China’s Renewable Energy Law of 2006 requires power grid companies to buy all output of local registered renewable energy producers. This has been instrumental in creating an extensive market for wind power. Provincial governments have also been quick to incorporate clear targets for wind power generation capacity in their five-year plans, ensuring the continued growth of China’s wind power sector.

On the investment side, wind power is a hot spot for renewable energy investors with the overall required investment estimated at US$91.1 billion by 2020. Investment is currently dominated by the “Big Five” state-owned power companies and the private players connected with them. These groups will need to face several challenges, including those regarding technical transmission and unpredictable pricing policies.

The division of investment from the public and private sides is determined largely by each group’s tolerance for sustained losses. For many government-linked investment groups, developing wind energy at a loss is viable since they can potentially make up their investment over the next five to 10 years. Chinese wind farms help state-linked companies fulfill renewable energy quotas and secure generation resources for the future. Because wind power is expected to contribute 10% of China’s electricity by 2020, these public investors can sustain current losses with the promise that they will eventually turn a profit. However, for most private investors the risk is too high to profitably fund wind power in China.

As state-owned enterprises are driving the growth of wind generation capacity, the turbine manufacturing sector is also experiencing a boom. In terms of wind power equipment manufacturing, the sector is dominated by major foreign and JV manufacturers who have established a strong base in China. With the explosive growth in demand for wind power, the wind turbine industry is currently operating at full capacity and cannot keep up with demand.

At the same time, local firms are growing steadily in this market. These local firms are expected to have a competitive quality product at a 10% to 20% lower price compared to foreign rivals. The government has had a role in specifically encouraging the local turbine manufacturing sector. The current Chinese policy aims for 70% of China’s wind turbines to be produced locally. Therefore, China-based manufacturers remain one of the most attractive investment opportunities. Despite small “pockets” of opportunity for private investors, it is clear that in wind energy, as in other renewable energy technologies, the Chinese government continues to be the driving force behind development funding.

The Chinese government has the funds and willpower to fuel the renewable energy investments necessary to reach its 2020 goal of 15% percent of energy consumption regardless of whether the private sector participates or not. As the rest of the world comes to terms with China’s massive energy needs and corresponding initiatives, it is important to recognize that the Western economic framework for analyzing the energy industry and companies may not apply in China. Multiple priorities for the Chinese government hinge on resolving the energy crisis, including China’s energy needs, social stability and environmental concerns. Therefore, the government will continue to push its agenda of making renewable energy a substantial portion of China’s overall energy consumption.

As China continues its path as a global economic powerhouse, its massive investments in renewable energy present an unprecedented opportunity for the development of sustainable technologies. Although these initiatives are largely for pragmatic reasons rather than environmental concerns, the coming decades of investment, both public and private, should yield global benefits. The future for renewable energy in China is bright, primarily because it is a necessity, not an alternative.

Source: Written by Joshua Chen. Published in Knowledge@Wharton. [link to post]

Posted in Clean Tech, Renewable Energy Tagged: China, Renewable Energy, Solar, wind ]]> http://ecokoncepts.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/renewable-energy-in-china-a-necessity-not-an-alternative/feed/ 0 ecokoncepts renewable_china http://ecokoncepts.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/sun-water-fuel/ http://ecokoncepts.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/sun-water-fuel/#comments Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:34:07 +0000 Sunil Reddy M http://ecokoncepts.wordpress.com/?p=277 ]]> With catalysts created by an MIT chemist, sunlight can turn water into hydrogen. If the process can scale up, it could make solar power a dominant source of energy.

“I’m going to show you something I haven’t showed anybody yet,” said Daniel Nocera, a professor of chemistry at MIT, speaking this May to an auditorium filled with scientists and U.S. government energy officials. He asked the house manager to lower the lights. Then he started a video. “Can you see that?” he asked excitedly, pointing to the bubbles rising from a strip of material immersed in water. “Oxygen is pouring off of this electrode.” Then he added, somewhat cryptically, “This is the future. We’ve got the leaf.”

What Nocera was demonstrating was a reaction that generates oxygen from water much as green plants do during photosynthesis–an achievement that could have profound implications for the energy debate. Carried out with the help of a catalyst he developed, the reaction is the first and most difficult step in splitting water to make hydrogen gas. And efficiently generating hydrogen from water, Nocera believes, will help surmount one of the main obstacles preventing solar power from becoming a dominant source of electricity: there’s no cost-effective way to store the energy collected by solar panels so that it can be used at night or during cloudy days.

Solar power has a unique potential to generate vast amounts of clean energy that doesn’t contribute to global warming. But without a cheap means to store this energy, solar power can’t replace fossil fuels on a large scale. In Nocera’s scenario, sunlight would split water to produce versatile, easy-to-store hydrogen fuel that could later be burned in an internal-combustion generator or recombined with oxygen in a fuel cell. Even more ambitious, the reaction could be used to split seawater; in that case, running the hydrogen through a fuel cell would yield fresh water as well as electricity.

Storing energy from the sun by mimicking photosynthesis is something scientists have been trying to do since the early 1970s. In particular, they have tried to replicate the way green plants break down water. Chemists, of course, can already split water. But the process has required high temperatures, harsh alkaline solutions, or rare and expensive catalysts such as platinum. What Nocera has devised is an inexpensive catalyst that produces oxygen from water at room temperature and without caustic chemicals–the same benign conditions found in plants. Several other promising catalysts, including another that Nocera developed, could be used to complete the process and produce hydrogen gas.

Nocera sees two ways to take advantage of his breakthrough. In the first, a conventional solar panel would capture sunlight to produce electricity; in turn, that electricity would power a device called an electrolyzer, which would use his catalysts to split water. The second approach would employ a system that more closely mimics the structure of a leaf. The catalysts would be deployed side by side with special dye molecules designed to absorb sunlight; the energy captured by the dyes would drive the water-splitting reaction. Either way, solar energy would be converted into hydrogen fuel that could be easily stored and used at night–or whenever it’s needed.

Nocera’s audacious claims for the importance of his advance are the kind that academic chemists are usually loath to make in front of their peers. Indeed, a number of experts have questioned how well his system can be scaled up and how economical it will be. But Nocera shows no signs of backing down. “With this discovery, I totally change the dialogue,” he told the audience in May. “All of the old arguments go out the window.”

The Dark Side of Solar
Sunlight is the world’s largest potential source of renewable energy, but that potential could easily go unrealized. Not only do solar panels not work at night, but daytime production waxes and wanes as clouds pass overhead. That’s why today most solar panels–both those in solar farms built by utilities and those mounted on the roofs of houses and businesses–are connected to the electrical grid. During sunny days, when solar panels are operating at peak capacity, homeowners and companies can sell their excess power to utilities. But they generally have to rely on the grid at night, or when clouds shade the panels.

This system works only because solar power makes such a tiny contribution to overall electricity production: it meets a small fraction of 1 percent of total demand in the United States. As the contribution of solar power grows, its unreliability will become an increasingly serious problem.

If solar power grows enough to provide as little as 10 percent of total electricity, utilities will need to decide what to do when clouds move in during times of peak demand, says Ryan Wiser, a research scientist who studies electricity markets at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, CA. Either utilities will need to operate extra natural-gas plants that can quickly ramp up to compensate for the lost power, or they’ll need to invest in energy storage. The first option is currently cheaper, Wiser says: “Electrical storage is just too expensive.”

But if we count on solar energy for more than about 20 percent of total electricity, he says, it will start to contribute to what’s called base load power, the amount of power necessary to meet minimum demand. And base load power (which is now supplied mostly by coal-fired plants) must be provided at a relatively constant rate. Solar energy can’t be harnessed for this purpose unless it can be stored on a large scale for use 24 hours a day, in good weather and bad.

In short, for solar to become a primary source of electricity, vast amounts of affordable storage will be needed. And today’s options for storing electricity just aren’t practical on a large enough scale, says Nathan Lewis, a professor of chemistry at Caltech. Take one of the least expensive methods: using electricity to pump water uphill and then running the water through a turbine to generate elec­tricity later on. One kilogram of water pumped up 100 meters stores about a kilojoule of energy. In comparison, a kilogram of gasoline stores about 45,000 kilojoules. Storing enough energy this way would require massive dams and huge reservoirs that would be emptied and filled every day. And try finding enough water for that in places such as Arizona and Nevada, where sunlight is particularly abundant.

Batteries, meanwhile, are expensive: they could add $10,000 to the cost of a typical home solar system. And although they’re improving, they still store far less energy than fuels such as gasoline and hydrogen store in the form of chemical bonds. The best batteries store about 300 watt-hours of energy per kilogram, Lewis says, while gasoline stores 13,000 watt-hours per kilogram. “The numbers make it obvious that chemical fuels are the only energy-dense way to obtain massive energy storage,” Lewis says. Of those fuels, not only is hydrogen potentially cleaner than gasoline, but by weight it stores much more energy–about three times as much, though it takes up more space because it’s a gas.

The challenge lies in using energy from the sun to make such fuels cheaply and efficiently. This is where Nocera’s efforts to mimic photosynthesis come in.

Imitating Plants
In real photosynthesis, green plants use chlorophyll to capture energy from sunlight and then use that energy to drive a series of complex chemical reactions that turn water and carbon dioxide into energy-rich carbohydrates such as starch and sugar. But what primarily interests many researchers is an early step in the process, in which a combination of proteins and inorganic catalysts helps break water efficiently into oxygen and hydrogen ions.

The field of artificial photosynthesis got off to a quick start. In the early 1970s, a graduate student at the University of Tokyo, Akira Fujishima, and his thesis advisor, Kenichi Honda, showed that electrodes made from titanium dioxide–a component of white paint–would slowly split water when exposed to light from a bright, 500-watt xenon lamp. The finding established that light could be used to split water outside of plants. In 1974, Thomas Meyer, a professor of chemistry at the University of North Caro­lina, Chapel Hill, showed that a ruthenium-based dye, when exposed to light, underwent chemical changes that gave it the potential to oxidize water, or pull electrons from it–the key first step in water splitting.

Ultimately, neither technique proved practical. The titanium dioxide couldn’t absorb enough sunlight, and the light-induced chemical state in Meyer’s dye was too transient to be useful. But the advances stimu­lated the imaginations of scientists. “You could look ahead and see where to go and, at least in principle, put the pieces together,” Meyer says.

Over the next few decades, scientists studied the structures and materials in plants that absorb sunlight and store its energy. They found that plants carefully choreograph the movement of water molecules, electrons, and hydrogen ions–that is, protons. But much about the precise mechanisms involved remained unknown. Then, in 2004, researchers at Imperial College London identified the structure of a group of proteins and metals that is crucial for freeing oxygen from water in plants. They showed that the heart of this catalytic complex was a collection of proteins, oxygen atoms, and manganese and calcium ions that interact in specific ways.

“As soon as we saw this, we could start designing systems,” says Nocera, who had been trying to fully understand the chemistry behind photosynthesis since 1984. Reading this “road map,” he says, his group set out to manage protons and electrons somewhat the way plants do–but using only inorganic materials, which are more robust and stable than proteins.

Initially, Nocera didn’t tackle the biggest challenge, pulling oxygen out from water. Rather, “to get our training wheels,” he began with the reverse reaction: combining oxygen with protons and electrons to form water. He found that certain complex compounds based on cobalt were good catalysts for this reaction. So when it came time to try splitting water, he decided to use similar cobalt compounds.

Nocera knew that working with these compounds in water could be a problem, since cobalt can dissolve. Not surprisingly, he says, “within days we realized that cobalt was falling out of this elaborate compound that we made.” With his initial attempts foiled, he decided to take a different approach. Instead of using a complex compound, he tested the catalytic activity of dissolved cobalt, with some phosphate added to the water to help the reaction. “We said, let’s forget all the elaborate stuff and just use cobalt directly,” he says.

The experiment worked better than Nocera and his colleagues had expected. When a current was applied to an electrode immersed in the solution, cobalt and phosphate accumulated on it in a thin film, and a dense layer of bubbles started forming in just a few minutes. Further tests confirmed that the bubbles were oxygen released by splitting the water. “Here’s the luck,” Nocera says. “There was no reason for us to expect that just plain cobalt with phosphate, versus cobalt being tied up in one of our complexes, would work this well. I couldn’t have predicted it. The stuff that was falling out of the compounds turned out to be what we needed.

“Now we want to understand it,” he continues. “I want to know why the hell cobalt in this thin film is so active. I may be able to improve it or use a different metal that’s better.” At the same time, he wants to start working with engineers to optimize the process and make an efficient water-splitting cell, one that incorporates catalysts for generating both oxygen and hydrogen. “We were really interested in the basic science. Can we make a catalyst that works efficiently under the conditions of photosynthesis?” he says. “The answer now is yes, we can do that. Now we’ve really got to get to the technology of designing a cell.”

Catalyzing a Debate
Nocera’s discovery has garnered a lot of attention, and not all of it has been flattering. Many chemists find his claims overstated; they don’t dispute his findings, but they doubt that they will have the consequences he imagines. “The claim that this is the answer for artificial photosynthesis is crazy,” says Thomas Meyer, who has been a mentor to Nocera. He says that while Nocera’s catalysts “could prove technologically important,” the advance is “a research finding,” and there’s “no guarantee that it can be scaled up or even made practical.”

Many critics’ objections revolve around the inability of ­Nocera’s lab setup to split water nearly as rapidly as commercial electrolyzers do. The faster the system, the smaller a commercial unit that produced a given amount of hydrogen and oxygen would be. And smaller systems, in general, are cheaper.

The way to compare different catalysts is to look at their “current density”–that is, electrical current per square centimeter–when they’re at their most efficient. The higher the current, the faster the catalyst can produce oxygen. Nocera reported results of 1 milliamp per square centimeter, although he says he’s achieved 10 milliamps since then. Commercial electrolyzers typically run at about 1,000 milliamps per square centimeter. “At least what he’s published so far would never work for a commercial electrolyzer, where the current density is 800 times to 2,000 times greater,” says John Turner, a research fellow at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, CO.

Other experts question the whole principle of converting sunlight into electricity, then into a chemical fuel, and then back into electricity again. They suggest that while batteries store far less energy than chemical fuels, they are nevertheless far more efficient, because using electricity to make fuels and then using the fuels to generate electricity wastes energy at every step. It would be better, they say, to focus on improving battery technology or other similar forms of electrical storage, rather than on developing water splitters and fuel cells. As Ryan Wiser puts it, “Electrolysis is [currently] inefficient, so why would you do it?”

The Artificial Leaf
Michael Grätzel, however, may have a clever way to turn Nocera’s discovery to practical use. A professor of chemistry and chemical engineering at the École Polytechnique Fédérale in Lausanne, Switzerland, he was one of the first people Nocera told about his new catalyst. “He was so excited,” Grätzel says. “He took me to a restaurant and bought a tremendously expensive bottle of wine.”

In 1991, Grätzel invented a promising new type of solar cell. It uses a dye containing ruthenium, which acts much like the chlorophyll in a plant, absorbing light and releasing electrons. In ­Grätzel’s solar cell, however, the electrons don’t set off a water-splitting reaction. Instead, they’re collected by a film of titanium dioxide and directed through an external circuit, generating electricity. Grätzel now thinks that he can integrate his solar cell and ­Nocera’s catalyst into a single device that captures the energy from sunlight and uses it to split water.

If he’s right, it would be a significant step toward making a device that, in many ways, truly resembles a leaf. The idea is that Grätzel’s dye would take the place of the electrode on which the catalyst forms in Nocera’s system. The dye itself, when exposed to light, can generate the voltage needed to assemble the catalyst. “The dye acts like a molecular wire that conducts charges away,” Grätzel says. The catalyst then assembles where it’s needed, right on the dye. Once the catalyst is formed, the sunlight absorbed by the dye drives the reactions that split water. Grätzel says that the device could be more efficient and cheaper than using a separate solar panel and electrolyzer.

Another possibility that Nocera is investigating is whether his catalyst can be used to split seawater. In initial tests, it performs well in the presence of salt, and he is now testing it to see how it handles other compounds found in the sea. If it works, Nocera’s system could address more than just the energy crisis; it could help solve the world’s growing shortage of fresh water as well.

Artificial leaves and fuel-producing desalination systems might sound like grandiose promises. But to many scientists, such possibilities seem maddeningly close; chemists seeking new energy technologies have been taunted for decades by the fact that plants easily use sunlight to turn abundant materials into energy-rich molecules. “We see it going on all around us, but it’s something we can’t really do,” says Paul Alivisatos, a professor of chemistry and materials science at the University of California, Berkeley, who is leading an effort at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to imitate photosynthesis by chemical means.

But soon, using nature’s own blueprint, human beings could be using the sun “to make fuels from a glass of water,” as Nocera puts it. That idea has an elegance that any chemist can appreciate–and possibilities that everyone should find hopeful. 

Source: Posted by Kevin Bullis for Technology Review. [link to post]

Credit: Christopher Harting

Polaris general partner Amir Nashat is in charge of the venture firm’s interest in Sun Catalytix, which was quietly formed last year and is operating in the Boston area, according to sources close to the firm. Nashat declined to comment on the company, saying that its founders have decided not to talk to the press about the stealthy operation at this time. (Nashat himself got his doctorate in chemical engineering from MIT, though most of the Polaris investments he’s overseen in the past were in biotech startups.) Sun Catalytix has completed a $700,000 seed round of financing, according to the VentureExpert database, cited by news website PE Hub after Xconomy posted its story on Sun Catalytix this morning.

Nocera has gained notoriety for his technology that offers a novel way to utilize solar energy and could be used to make hydrogen gas with two plentiful and nonpolluting resources: sunlight and water. And it bodes well for the commercial prospects of Nocera’s technology that a top-tier venture firm like Waltham, MA-based Polaris has stepped in to back Sun Catalytix. But by all accounts, there are technical hurdles to clear before Nocera’s solar fuel technology is ready for commercial use. Also, market factors such as the economic meltdown have slowed growth in the solar energy market and created barriers for adopting new solar technologies, an industry expert says.

Nocera’s exciting discovery is a catalyst that, according to MIT, consists of an electrode placed in water containing cobalt and phosphate. MIT explains that when electricity from any source enters the electrode, the cobalt and phosphate create a film over the electrode, forming a catalyst that separates oxygen gas from the water and leaves behind hydrogen molecules. Then a platinum catalyst is used to convert the hydrogen molecules into hydrogen gas, which could power fuel cells and further efforts to lower global dependence on petroleum-based fuels. The vision is to use sunlight to enable these chemical reactions, creating a new way to tap solar power for energy.

As of last summer, commercializing the technology depended on overcoming at least a couple of technical challenges, one of which is the development of a material that can absorb solar energy to enable the water-splitting reaction. Another is finding a metal cheaper than the platinum to convert hydrogen molecules into hydrogen gas, according to a July 2008 Technology Review story. In the same article, though, German chemist Karsten Meyer, of Friedrich Alexander University, said: “…this is probably the most important single [solar energy] discovery of the century.”

Still, Sun Catalytix is not without competition. For several year, Maynard, MA-based Nanoptek has been working to commercialize its own catalyst to break apart water molecules and produce hydrogen gas. Nanoptek’s catalyst consists of titanium dioxide and “nano-structures” (according to its website), and is also intended to use energy from the sun to complete its water-splitting reaction. The company has kept a low profile since it announced a $4.7 million first-round financing in January 2008, and company CEO John Guerra told me that the company isn’t talking publicly about its operations or technology.

The formation of Sun Catalytix comes at a difficult time for solar energy startups, several of which, such as Evergreen Solar, Konarka Technologies, and Wakonda Technologies, call the Boston area home. The global market for solar energy and technology is expected to fall from $36 billion in 2008 to an estimated $29 billion this year, according to a February report by Boston-based Lux Research. The decline is due in large part to the global financial crisis, lower demand for traditional photovoltaic solar cells, and a decrease in prices for this technology, Lux solar energy analyst Johanna Schmidtke says. At the same time, market worries among solar consumers have stunted adoption of newer solar products such as cadium-telluride-based cells and thin film solar cells.

These dynamics can spell trouble for young firms with new technologies trying to gain a foothold in the solar energy market. “It’s definitely a market barrier,” Schmidtke says. “We’ve heard of companies that are having significant trouble at the… research and development level.”

Still, there’s hope for Sun Catalytix and other startups in the early stages of developing solar technologies. The solar energy market will begin to recover in 2010 and grow to a whopping $70 billion by 2013, according to Lux. This is also good news for Polaris-backed startups such as Beverly, MA-based SiOnyx, which is developing “black silicon” to make more efficient photovoltaic cells and semiconductors, and 1366 Technologies, a Lexington, MA-based firm that aims to reduce the cost of producing multicrystalline PV cells.

Source: Posted by Ryan McBride for Xconomy. [link to post]

Propellers on ships have been tried and tested for centuries in the rough and unforgiving environment of the sea: now this long-proven technology will be used in reverse to harness clean energy from the UK’s powerful tides.

The tides that surge around the UK’s coasts could provide up to a quarter of the nation’s electricity, without any carbon emissions. But life in the stormy seas is harsh and existing equipment – long-bladed underwater wind turbines – is prone to failure.A Welsh renewable energy company has teamed up with ship propulsion experts to design a new marine turbine which they believe is far more robust.

Cardiff-based Tidal Energy Limited will test a 1MW tidal turbine off the Pembrokeshire coast at Ramsey Sound, big enough to supply around 1,000 homes. Their DeltaStream device, invented by marine engineer Richard Ayre while he was installing buoys in the marine nature reserve near Pembrokeshire, will be the first tidal device in Wales and become fully operational in 2010.

To ensure the propeller and electricity generation systems were as tough as possible, the tidal turbine’s designers worked with Converteam, a company renowned for designing propulsion systems for ships. “They’ve put them on the bottom of the Queen Mary … and done work for highly efficient destroyers, which is exactly the same technology that we’re looking at here,” said Chris Williams, development director of DeltaStream.

DeltaStream’s propellers work in reverse to a ship’s propulsion system – the water turns the blades to generate electricity – but the underlying connections between blades and power systems are identical to those on the ship.

Tidal streams are seen as a plentiful and predictable supply of clean energy, as the UK tries to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Conservative estimates suggest there is at least 5GW of power, but there could be as much as 15GW – 25% of current national demand.

A single DeltaStream unit has three propeller-driven generators that sit on a triangular frame. It weighs 250 tonnes, but is relatively light compared with other tidal systems which can be several times heavier. The unit is simple to install and can be used in closely packed units at depths of at least 20m. Unlike other tidal turbine systems, which must be anchored to the sea floor using piles bored into the seabed, DeltaStream’s triangular structure simply sits on the sea floor.

Duncan Ayling, head of offshore at the British Wind Energy Association and a former UK government adviser on marine energy, said that one of the biggest issues facing all tidal-stream developers is ease of installation and maintenance of their underwater device. “Anything you put under the water becomes expensive to get to and service. The really good bit of the DeltaStream is that they can just plonk it in the water and it just sits there.”

Another issue that has plagued proposed tidal projects is concern that the whirling blades could kill marine life. But Williams said: “The blades themselves are thick and slow moving in comparison to other devices, so minimising the chance of impact on marine life.”

The device also has a fail-safe feature when the water currents become too powerful and threaten to destroy the turbines by dragging them across the sea floor – the propellers automatically tilt their orientation to shed the extra energy.

Pembrokeshire businessman and sustainability consultant Andy Middleton said: “People are increasingly recognising how serious global warming really is, and in St David’s we are keen to embrace our responsibility to minimise climate change. DeltaStream is developing into a perfect example of the technology that fills the need for green energy and has the added benefit of being invisible and reliable.”

The country’s first experimental tidal turbine began generating electricity in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland last year, built by Bristol-based company Marine Current Turbines. SeaGen began at about 150kW, enough for around 100 homes, but has now reached 1,200kW in testing. It had a setback early in its test phase, with the tidal streams breaking one of the blades in July.

Source: Posted in Guardian. [link to post]

Tidal-power developments by British firms show this renewable power technology achieving impressive scale and continued design innovation. Bristol-based Marine Current Turbines (MCT) revealed last month that its SeaGen dual-turbine system achieved full power operation of 1.2 megawatts. MCT’s power peak is four times the global record for a tidal-stream system set by the company in 2004, according to U.K.-based renewables journal REFocus, and 30 times more than the output from the tidal turbines pumping electricity in New York’s East River.

To see these concepts in action, check out the animation below and Tidal Energy’s.

Watch animation >>

Meanwhile, the U.K. Guardian reported yesterday that more large-scale demonstrations are on the way as Cardiff-based Tidal Energy prepares to test a one-megawatt version of its triple-rotor design off the coast of Wales by next year.

Hitting full power clears a major hurdle for MCT. As Technology Review reported last July, the company suffered a setback early on when the powerful tidal streams of Northern Ireland’s Strangford Lough damaged one of its blades shortly after installation. In an odd way, it’s an affirmation of MCT’s design, which enables the dual rotors to be lifted clear up out of the water for easy maintenance and repair.

While at a considerably earlier phase of development, MCT rival Tidal Energy’s triple-rotor concept provides an equally innovative means of ready repair. Tidal Energy’s rotors sit at the corners of a three-legged platform that can be deposited on the seabed and held in place by the system’s 250-ton heft. That should not only ease recovery of the system for maintenance, but also simplify installation by eliminating the need for a fixed foundation in the seabed.

Source: Posted by Peter Fairley for Technology Review. [link to post]

A New York Times article this week concludes that major oil and gas companies are, as the headline roared, “Loath to Follow Obama’s Green Lead.” Such stories bashing Big Oil’s slim investment in renewable energy tend to fall short by failing to consider how renewables intersect with an oil company’s core business, and this one is no exception.

As the Times ably demonstrates, Big Oil is freezing or cutting investment in renewable energy and doing so from a relatively small base. It notes that Shell, which has frozen spending on wind, solar, and hydrogen energy, has invested just $1.7 billion on alternative energy projects since 2004, compared to $87 billion to keep its oil and gas flowing.

That should come as little surprise, since Big Oil’s insubstantial and fickle commitment to renewable energy goes back decades. Following the 1973 oil shock, for example, U.S. oil majors of the time such as Mobil and Chevron embraced photovoltaics, only to dump the projects when oil prices crashed and OPEC’s power waned a decade later. British Petroleum’s promise to go “Beyond Petroleum” already looked weak five years ago when it ditched production of next-generation cadmium-telluride thin-film photovoltaics–technology that Arizona-based First Solar has since ridden to the top of the world PV market.

Big Oil has a limited attention span for renewables because such firms are not, despite their marketing claims, “energy” companies. They are marketers of specific energy products–primarily petroleum refined into motor fuels and natural gas for heating. Power generation, the focus of most renewables, is but a secondary market for their natural gas.

As Christopher Flavin, president of the DC-based Worldwatch Institute, put it to me a few years ago, “There couldn’t be anything more different than selling devices to make electricity on rooftops and selling gas at the pump.” Flavin’s comment ran in my 2005 look at GE’s leap into renewables, which at the time elicited similar but unwarranted skepticism. He was among those who noted that power generation was a key market for GE’s equipment, and time has proved him right as GE continues to expand investment in renewables and energy efficiency.

The exception to Big Oil’s retreat from renewables–its ongoing support for biofuels developments–cements the “core markets” analysis. Biofuels are, at present, the best response to the return of battery-powered electric vehicles after a century of suffering at the hands of the internal combustion engine and Big Oil’s liquid fuels. Biofuels provide a natural product for gas stations, and blending with gasoline and diesel fuels will sustain the latter for decades.

Given the practical and policy challenges arrayed against biofuels, its supporters will need all the help they can get from Big Oil. According to a report in DomesticFuel.comlast week, fuel trackers with the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency say that the United States will likely fall short of legislated goals for cellulosic ethanol: 100 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol in 2010, rising to 4.3 billion gallons by 2015

Source:Posted by Peter Fairley for Technology Review. [link to post]

The sun is the most abundant source of renewable energy. But all the technologies that capitalize on sunlight, including photovoltaics and biofuels, require intermediate steps and infrastructure to turn the sun’s rays into something that can be used to perform work in a machine. Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, are using carbon nanotubes to build small, simple waterborne machines propelled directly by sunlight. In theory, they say, these machines could be scaled up to make energy-generating pumps directly powered by the sun.

Solar spin: A four-finned rotor (center) floating on a pool of water spins when exposed to sunlight. At left is a lens used to direct sunlight onto the rotor; the bright shape next to the rotor is reflected sunlight.

Watch video >>

The sun-powered machines rely on water’s surface tension. Water molecules are strongly attracted to one another. These high-energy interactions can, under the right conditions, pull objects across the water. The Berkeley machines are pieces of clear plastic, about a centimeter on their longest edge, embedded with strips of vertically aligned carbon nanotubes. When light from the sun or from a laser is focused on the machine floating on a pool of water, the nanotubes heat up and heat the water around them. This causes a decrease in surface tension localized to one region of the machine, which is in turn propelled forward away from the low-tension part of the surface.

Other similar systems break surface tension using electrical pulses, but this requires a power source such as a battery or a solar cell. “This is better because you eliminate the middleman and get a lot of work out,” says Alex Zettl, a professor of condensed-matter physics at Berkeley who led the research team with Jean M.J. Fréchet, a professor of chemistry and chemical engineering. “We think we’re on to something because surface tension is very powerful,” says Zettl.

So far, the Berkeley team has demonstrated two basic sun-powered machines. The first, a plastic rectangular boat with a nanotube strip at its back, performs linear motion. By directing laser light or using a lens to focus sunlight either at the center of the nanotube strip or at its corners, the boat can be directed straight forward or in circles. When light is focused onto it, a boat about a centimeter long can travel as fast as eight centimeters per second. The second machine is a simple rotor with one nanotube strip on one side of each of its four fins. When exposed to direct sunlight, it spins at about 70 rotations per minute. Both machines have only been tested in containers in the lab.

“This is pretty simple stuff, but it’s made possible by sophisticated materials,” says Zettl. Earlier this month, researchers at Japan’s Meijo University established that carbon nanotubes arranged in forestlike, vertical arrays are the blackest materials ever tested, absorbing almost all the light that falls on them. “This material has the ideal properties for collecting energy from the sun,” says Fréchet.

Zettl and Fréchet say that, in theory, these thermal surface-tension effects should be scalable. The Berkeley group started with millimeter-scale machines not only because they were convenient to test in the lab, but also because manipulating objects this size in liquid poses particular challenges. Turbulence is a huge factor at the millimeter scale, says Fréchet. The light-powered mechanism could potentially be used to move nanoscale objects through microfluidic devices employed for medical diagnostics. At the nanoscale, says Fréchet, “surface tension beats gravity.” The researchers also hope to scale up their work to make actual boats. Lenses mounted on the back of a large boat should focus sufficient sunlight onto the absorbent nanotubes to propel it. They also hope to make large nanotube-embedded rotors for generators powered by the sun.

“Now they need to see if this will operate in a real environment,” says Dean Alhorn, lead engineer on NASA’s solar-driven satellite NanoSail-D. NASA’s satellite, which was tested this summer, uses a reflective material to absorb the momentum, rather than the heat, from photons; this technology should work well in the vacuum of space but hasn’t been practical on Earth. Alhorn says that Zettl and Fréchet have solidly demonstrated that it’s the light, not something else, causing the tiny boats to move. However, he notes that the machines have only been tested in tubs of water inside the lab. Alhorn says that the researchers will have to answer the question, “How much force can they generate, versus opposing forces like waves in the real world?”

Indeed, the Berkeley researchers say that their next step is further engineering their devices. “This could be very efficient because nanotubes absorb light so well, but we have to see if this is a viable thermodynamic system,” says Zettl.

Posted by Katherine Bourzac for Technology Review. [link to post]

Posted in Clean Tech Tagged: carbon nanotubes, composite materials, energy, hydrophobic, solar power ]]> http://ecokoncepts.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/harnessing-direct-solar-power-for-propulsion/feed/ 1 ecokoncepts http://ecokoncepts.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/reduce-reuse-recycle-your-old-gadgets/ http://ecokoncepts.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/reduce-reuse-recycle-your-old-gadgets/#comments Wed, 08 Apr 2009 06:50:07 +0000 Sunil Reddy M http://ecokoncepts.wordpress.com/?p=233 ]]> Most of us grew up with the Environmental Protection Agency’s friendly “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” motto — but when it comes to gadgets, being environmentally responsible isn’t quite so easy.

That’s because electronics are neither easy for manufacturers to create nor simple for recyclers to disassemble. On top of that, laws on handling e-waste are inconsistent between countries, states and even cities. Long story short, the biggest problem with recycling gadgets is it’s confusing as hell for consumers.

But it really doesn’t have to be. Below, Gadget Lab rounds up a list of major companies and how their recycling programs work — so your next useless cellphone doesn’t end up taking up space in a drawer or leaching toxics into a landfill. We’ll start with the easiest stuff first and then move on to the more complicated gadgets.

Here’s what you can do!

Take the junk to Best Buy

One of the best moves Best Buy has made to date was its adoption of a consumer-friendly electronics recycling program in February. The program accepts most electronics, including TVs, computers and DVD players. A few caveats: Best Buy does not accept electronics containing Freon (like air conditioners and refrigerators), major appliances (e.g., microwaves), or TVs and monitors larger than 32 inches. Also, you must pay $10 to recycle a TV, CRT, monitor or laptop. In exchange, however, Best Buy gives you a free $10 gift certificate. Not so bad, right?

Here’s why this is great for the gadget world: Everybody — even the most tech-hating, wood pulp-loving Luddite — knows what Best Buy is. And there are locations everywhere. What better way to use a chain’s brand name for good? But alas, there are restrictions to what you can recycle at Best Buy — which is why this list must go on.

Turn useless gadgets into money

It’s not just confusing for us to get rid of electronics. It’s tough to let them go because they usually cost a lot. So this is where Gazelle comes in. The company isn’t a recycler per se — it’s more of a reseller that will pay money for your used electronics. If there’s no resale value in the gadget you send in, it gets recycled at no cost to you.

You simply type the gadget you want to sell into the Gazelle website’s search bar, and when the gadget shows up you answer a few questions about its condition. Here’s the best part: Gazelle sends you a free shipping label, and all you have to do is pack up the gadget and drop it off at UPS. That’s way easier than dealing with weirdos on Craigslist, right?

But again, there are restrictions. The electronic goods Gazelle accepts are limited to cellphones, digital cameras, MP3 players, PDAs, notebooks, gaming consoles, GPS devices, camcorders, satellite radios, external drives, video games, LCD monitors, movies and Blu-Ray players.

Check out the manufacturer’s recycling program

Here’s where things get more complicated. Each manufacturer handles recycling differently for various products. So if you want to recycle an HP print cartridge and an HP battery, for example, you can’t just send them to the same place. That means you’re going to have to scour manufacturer’s mind-numbingly boring websites.

We’ve done the tedious work for you. Here’s a list of tech giants’ recycling programs:

Apple

Recycling old Macs, iPods and Apple displays is free — so long as you buy a new Mac, iPod or Apple display and select the option to participate in the Apple Recycling Program. If you opt in, Apple will send you an e-mail containing instructions on how to send back your old Apple gadget and recycle it for free.

* If you choose not to buy a new Apple gadget, you can pay a $30 fee to recycle it through Metech , an

Apple recycling vendor.

* Live in Cupertino? You can drop off unwanted iPods and Macs at Apple’s Cupertino recycling collection facility. Call 408-862-2667 for details.
* Oklahoma and Texas residents can recycle used Apple computers, monitors, keyboards and mice for free. They must fill out a form to print out a free shipping label.

Asus

* Recyling old Asus products, including laptops, displays, PDAs and wireless devices, is free. Fill out an online form to print a free shipping label. Pack the Asus product in a box and drop it off at the nearest FedEx location.

Canon

* Consumers can send back any Canon product for recycling for a fee. To do so, visit Canon’s recycling tool, choose your product and punch in its serial number. You’ll be able to print a UPS label, package your gadget and ship it.
* The fee structure is based on product category:
* $6, plus applicable sales tax — binoculars, camcorders, cameras, compact photo printers, film, scanners and video equipment
* $12, plus applicable sales tax — flatbed scanners (CanoScan) and Bubble Jet products: printers, multifunction all-in-ones and fax machines
* $36, plus applicable sales tax — ImageCLASS products, laser fax machines and PC copier

Dell

* All Dell-branded notebooks, CPUs, CRT monitors, flat-panel monitors, printers, scanners, TVs and peripherals are free to recycle. Dell has an online tool to select the product type and punch in some info, and boom, you’ll get instructions.

Hewlett-Packard

* Inkjet or laserjet cartridges are free to recycle. Check cartridge boxes for return materials. You can order postage-paid return shipping materials online.
* Rechargeable batteries are free to recycle. HP outsourced battery recycling to the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation, which has 32,000 retail drop-off locations in the United States. You can look up the nearest drop-off location at RBRC’s website.
* Cellphones are free to recycle. HP advises you to delete all confidential data from your phone. Then fill out some contact information online, print a shipping label courtesy of HP, package your cellphone and off it goes.
* For other hardware, HP points you to a tool to look up how to recycle its hardware depending on the state you live in. (For the sake of simplicity, we recommend going down the Best Buy or Gazelle routes instead.)
* Have a useless projector? If it has a user-replaceable mercury lamp assembly, you can yank it out and recycle it free in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Same drill: Fill out some contact information, follow packaging instructions, print a label and ship.
* Banners and flags printed with a large-format printer can be recycled free. Fill out some information on HP’s site, pack the materials and print a shipping label.

Motorola

* Motorola will recycle any cell phone as well as cell phone accessories. Motorola advises you to delete all confidential data from your phone. A postage paid shipping label (good for up to 70 pounds of cell phones) is available at the Motorola EcoMoto website. A portion of the proceeds from recycling is donated to schools.
* Pre-paid postage packets are also included with many of Motorola’s new mobile phone models, making it easy to place the old mobile in the envelope and drop the package in the mail for delivery to a recycling center.

Panasonic

* All Panasonic products, including TVs and batteries, are free to recycle — provided you drop them off at an MRM Recycling collection location.

Samsung

* All Samsung-branded electronics are accepted at various drop-off locations for no fee. You can look up the nearest drop-off location at Samsung’s website.
* Recycling toner cartridges is free. Fill out information at Samsung’s website to print out a label, pack your used Samsung toner and off it goes.
* For cellphones, Samsung asks that you completely discharge the battery, remove and hold on to your SIM card, erase all personal information and back up contacts and documents using provided software. Then you fill out a form, print a label, pack the phone in a 5.5-inch-x-7.5-inch box and ship it.
* For office equipment, you fill out a trade-in form through EnviroSync. Then AnythingIT will contact you about the trade-in with a quote for the recycling fee. (Some Samsung models are free to recycle.) After you approve the quote, AnythingIT will schedule a pickup within two weeks.

Sharp

* For TVs and electronics, Sharp shares the same recycling program as Panasonic — a take-back program through MRM Recycling, free for consumers provided you drop off your junk at a collection location.

Sony

* Sony says for no fee, it will take back any used Sony product and recycle it. You just have to bring your junk to any Waste Management e-Cycling drop-off center. Look up the nearest drop-off center at Sony’s website.

Toshiba

* Similar to Gazelle, Toshiba offers a trade-in program for you to get some money off your used gadgets. Products with no market value are recycled free. At Toshiba’s website, choose the product type, fill out some information and get a quote.
* TVs can also be dropped off at an MRM Recycling collection location for no fee.

Donations

One possible route is to donate your used computer equipment. However, many well-meaning users and even companies that donate old PCs directly to schools and nonprofits — rather than through a recycler — can end up passing on more of a burden than a blessing.

Whether or not your PC is a good donation depends on its condition. If it’s only a year or two old and still works, make sure you take it to a reputable recycler and you should be OK.

However, older gear is often donated with good intentions, but ends up in developing world “landfills” because it’s broken, unusable, too obsolete or unneeded.

It’s up to you, the donor, to ask the recipient of your electronics, how they intend to recycle it once it passes on. Some federal factsheets (.pdf) may be helpful.

Third-party recycling options

The EPA has a list of recommended recyclers specializing in electronic gear. In any case, you should ask your prospective (.pdf) recyclers questions (.pdf), and the best ones try to be transparent to their customers. Always question certification claims, and double-check on pledges.
Put it to use

Kevin Purdy of Lifehacker has seven tips for giving an old laptop new life. The collective intelligence of Metafilter has even more advice.

Source: Posted in Wired. [link to post]

GM and Segway have teamed up to develop a new prototype vehicle as part of their efforts to “reinvent the automobile,” the companies say, but it’s not clear that their new vehicle will do better than the original Segway personal transport.

Unlike the original self-balancing two-wheeler, the new vehicle will be enclosed and designed to transport two people seated side by side, rather than one person standing up. It will also be equipped with GPS, wireless technology, and sensors, which could eventually allow an onboard computer to take over some driving tasks.

The vehicle is designed for the city dweller, particularly those who don’t bother owning a car because of the twin frustrations of parking and traffic congestion. GM expects this market to grow as people continue to move from the country into cities, and these problems get worse. The vehicle won’t be allowed on the highways, since it will be limited to a top speed of 35 miles per hour. It will also have a range of about 35 miles. It’s supposed to cost one-fourth as much as a conventional car to operate. The companies haven’t disclosed the price of the vehicle, but they do have a catchy name: PUMA, for Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility.

<a href=”“>

Of course, it’s hard not to be skeptical. The original Segway transport was supposed to transform cities. Instead, many cities banned them, and it’s been relegated to niche applications. It’s given mall security guards a fun, and undoubtedly extremely useful, toy, for example. But will the redesign, and the added automation, make the PUMA more successful?

As with the first Segway, the question is, if you want a small vehicle that’s easy to park, why not just buy a bike or a scooter? If you don’t want to drive, and you live in the sort of city that this is targeted to, why not just take public transportation? Why risk a ride in an automated vehicle? The prototype, pictured in New York, looks pretty vulnerable next to the city’s taxis.

GM says that the enclosed design and side-by-side seating will make the vehicle more attractive than electric scooters, as will its automated driving feature, which presumably would be difficult to implement without the PUMA’s automatic balancing. But low-speed neighborhood electric vehicles, which are available now, or new highway-capable tiny electric vehicles, like Toyota’s FT-EV concept, can also be enclosed. GM says that the PUMA will be smaller and able to turn “on a dime,” so it should be easy to park. The computer automation is also easier, since a computer moderates the steering and acceleration already.

So GM’s proposition is that there is a market for a vehicle in between a scooter and a small electric vehicle, especially if it’s automated. But realistically, the automation will be a long time coming. Even if the technology works flawlessly, it seems unlikely that regulators will let such vehicles roam the cities, at least not unless there are dedicated lanes or overhead tracks, and those could be a tough sell. It also seems unlikely that consumers will trust such automation at first–again, unless the vehicles are running on tracks or on dedicated streets, like the Personal Rapid Transit systems being built at Heathrow Airport and in a new “green city” in Abu Dhabi.

If we leave out the vision of automation, is there enough left? It seems at the very least that GM has a tough marketing job ahead of it, as it essentially tries to create a new category of vehicle.

Source: Project PUMA
Posted in Sunilreddy Blog [link to post]

Water from most sources can be drunk if done so through the LifeStraw say the makers of the product.

Created by Danish innovator Torben Vestergaard Frandsen the straw is made of plastic and resembles a flute. Inside are filters and a chamber impregnated with iodine. These remove the bacteria from the water as it is drunk.

“You basically just suck the water through it,” said Alan Mortensen, business director of the Public Health Water-Bourne Disease Control – which produces the LifeStraw – told BBC World Service’s Culture Shock programme.

“You just need to suck a few times to get the water through all the filters.”

‘Bacteria-free drink’

The company that makes the LifeStraw, Vestergaard Frandsen, emphasise that it hopes the invention can help to meet the UN’s Millennium Development Goals on providing access to clean drinking water.

In the developing world, one person in six does not have access to drinking water, and 6,000 people a day die from water-borne diseases.

The LifeStraw, however, is designed to filter these out – it includes a disinfectant filter which kills bacteria, and active carbon which removes parasites and gives the water a better taste.

Mr Mortensen said that using the straw, it would be possible even to drink water from the notoriously polluted Thames river in London.

“You’d definitely have a bacteria-free drink,” he said.

“You might still taste some of the algae, but you could do it, no problem.”

He added that as the straw is aimed at the developing world, it is being made it in China, where production costs are lower.

It is priced at around $3.50 (£1.85) a straw. Each one will last for around 700 litres, around six months to a year.

Long journey

However, a spokesman for UK charity WaterAid, which works to supply clean water and sanitation in 17 of the world’s poorest countries, condemned the device as overly expensive, and said it was not a real solution.

The organisation’s Paul Hetherington said that while he thought the LifeStraw is an ‘amazing-sounding idea,’ he did not ultimately think it would help.

“$3.50 sounds like very little to you and me – but most people in those countries earn less than one dollar a day, with which they have to feed their families,” he said.

He added that he felt the problem is that many people live very far away from their water, often walking a total of 20km or more carrying a weight of 25 kilos.

“That’s what takes it out of them – the long journey,” he explained.

“The LifeStraw isn’t going to prevent that long journey, even if it does improve the water they drink.

“They’re not going to have the education, because they’re not going to have the time. It’s girls in particular who suffer, because it’s women and girls who have to collect the water.

“It only costs a charity like WaterAid £15 per person to provide them with water, sanitation and hygiene education, which, provided there is decent water resource management in the country, will last them a lifetime.

“At that rate, $3.50 is expensive.”

Source: Posted in BBC. [link to post]

Energy Secretary Steven Chu met with representatives of the FutureGen Alliance on Monday, strengthening the prospect that the group’s low-carbon coal-gasification project could be revived.

Plans to build a power plant featuring integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology and carbon capture and storage (CCS) hit a wall in January 2008 when the Bush administration withdrew support, citing cost overruns. Those concerns have since been exposed as an artifact of specious financial accounting that overestimated the cost of the plant by $500 million.

Those involved say that FutureGen may now be far more politically palatable and expedient. With five years of development already completed, they say that FutureGen is positioned to quickly advance two of the Obama administration’s top goals: economic stimulus and reduction of carbon emissions. “You have a project here that is shovel ready, and with the advancement of technology and importance of CCS, it’s very worthy of a large government infusion,” says Nick Akins, executive vice president for generation at utility giant American Electric Power (AEP), a member of the FutureGen Alliance.

Stephanie Mueller, press secretary for the U.S. Department of Energy, issued a statement after Monday’s meeting leaving no doubt about Chu’s interest. “Secretary Chu believes that the FutureGen proposal has real merit,” Mueller said. “In the coming weeks, the department will be working with the Alliance and members of Congress to strengthen the proposal and try to reach agreement on a path forward.”

If the project is revived, it will have plenty of company internationally. Three similar IGCC projects figure among a dozen schemes that European leaders last month deemed eligible to compete for €1 billion in stimulus funds set aside to support commercial-scale application of CCS in coal-fired power plants. Of those projects, six will be selected to receive funding. Meanwhile, a consortium of Chinese power generators has initiated construction of the GreenGen project, which was inspired by FutureGen.

FutureGen remains attractive because IGCC plants that capture and sequester CO2 are expected to offer one of the cheapest ways to achieve carbon-neutral power generation by 2020. Generating a megawatt-hour of power with CCS-equipped IGCC would cost $99 to $119 in 2020, according to European Commission cost estimates released this winter. That beats their estimates for the price of power from conventional coal plants with CCS, natural-gas generators with added CCS, and solar thermal power. (The cost of generating power from offshore wind farms was harder to predict, with estimates ranging from $86 to $152 per megawatt-hour.)

The only problem is that generating power from coal plants without CCS could be cheaper still. For such plants, the European Commission economists added a $54 charge for every ton of CO2 produced, to cover the cost of buying carbon credits under Europe’s cap and trade program. But the economists estimated that even after paying this added cost, conventional coal plants would still produce power more cheaply than plants burdened with the energy-intensive process for capturing CO2 and piping it to an appropriate underground storage site.

FutureGen proposes to reduce costs further by better integrating carbon capture. Most IGCC plants proposed by utilities to date would gasify coal to generate hydrogen and carbon monoxide and then burn the mixed gases. For example, Duke Energy’s $2.3 billion project in Edwardsport, IN, which is the only IGCC plant currently under construction in the U.S. Carbon-capture equipment pulls CO2 out of flue gases using compounds that absorb CO2.. This is an easier job with IGCC plants, which have CO2-rich exhaust fumes, than with conventional power plants.

FutureGen aims to push IGCC’s potential CCS advantage further by removing carbon from an even more concentrated mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, and then burning the pure hydrogen left over in more efficient (but as yet unproven) ultrahigh-temperature turbines. “It not only involves the carbon storage piece but also the advancement of hydrogen technologies associated with turbine performance,” says Akins. Munich-based Siemens AG, which sells IGCC technology, estimates that such integration could improve efficiency by about one-sixth–a huge boost for a sector that normally celebrates single-digit increases in efficiency.

The financial crisis threatens to leave this advantage on the shelf, however, since power companies currently favor CCS projects that simply bolt CCS onto existing coal plants. This includes Akins’ own company, as well as seven of the companies involved in the EU’s proposed CCS demonstrations. As the European Commission data suggest, plants with bolt-on CCS will cost more to run than an IGCC plant, but they require less capital up-front. “Major corporations like ours are experiencing the same type of economic upheaval the rest of the country is facing. Access to capital has become constrained,” says Akins.

On the other hand, international politics may favor the rebirth of FutureGen. In particular, getting developing countries such as China and India to commit to carbon caps is a major goal for the U.S. in the global negotiations governments hope to conclude in Copenhagen this December to define a successor to the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse-gas emissions. The Bush administration’s abrupt cancellation of FutureGen without notifying China, India, South Korea, and Australia–partners on the project–damaged relations with these countries, according to a report on FutureGen issued last month by Democrats serving on the House Science and Technology Committee. Worse still, the report cites a 2007 memo by Department of Energy staff arguing that cancelling FutureGen would disproportionately affect developing countries: “Without FutureGen, the availability of affordable coal-fueled CCS plants would be delayed at least 10 years.”

Tony Lodge, an energy analyst and fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies in London, calls the cancellation of FutureGen short-sighted. He is equally critical of a decision by the U.K. government to restrict the use of its own CCS demonstration to coal-station retrofits. “If leading coal-burning economies like the U.S. and the U.K. are to influence coal-hungry countries such as India and China, then they must match their words with action,” says Lodge. “Support and development of FutureGen would be a significant start.”

Source: Posted by Peter Fairley for Technology Review. [link to original post]

So it’s important that we establish up front whether we regard water as a human right or a treat for those who can afford it. If you think it should be the former, check out this new online petition to add a 31st article to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

“Article 31: Everyone has the right to clean and accessible water adequate for the health and well-being of the individual and family, and no one shall be deprived of such access or quality of water due to individual economic circumstances.”

You can sign at article31.org.

Source: OFFICE OF CC – An Amsterdam-based design company made up of Chris Vermaas and Chin-Lien Chen. They made beautiful graphics out of complicated information for Issue 005.

Here’s a solution: the bottleless water cooler from a company called Quench. They’ll rent you a cooler that plugs straight into your local tap water source (after all, we already have free water coming out of our walls). They’ll hook it up for you. And with six different layers of filters (and a UV purification system to keep bacteria in check) anything you drink out of a Quench cooler is likely to be cleaner than most bottled water anyway.

For those bottom-line-oriented managers, here’s the brass tacks: there’s a one-time $100 installation fee and a $40 to $50 monthly rental fee for the cooler—this’ll definitely be the cheapest way of safely hydrating your peons.

Here’s a picture:

They’re at Quenchonline.com

Co-founder Trevor Field has even combined the brilliant engineering of the pump with a dash of commercialism: Each 650-gallon tank sports four billboards, two for advertising and two for public-health messages. PlayPumps International raises the $14,000 for each system’s equipment and set-up costs. Ad revenues then pay for upkeep. One South African school principal has certainly noticed the difference a PlayPump brings: Now “learners can drink, a nutrition program is carried out with ease, our classrooms and toilets are clean,” he wrote. “And we have just planted new trees.”

There are now 700 PlayPumps scattered across southern Africa, and last year the U.S. government and several private foundations invested $16.4 million in the project—one-quarter of the money needed to reach a goal of 4,000 pumps by 2010, which would provide clean water to 10 million people in 10 countries across the continent. “It’s estimated that a child dies every 15 seconds from diseases related to unsafe water and inadequate sanitation,” says PlayPumps’ president, Jill Rademacher. “The water crisis is something we can’t ignore.”

Source: playpumps.org

You wouldn’t want your dog drinking this water, but otherwise it’s totally safe and does the job perfectly. Considering an average American family of four flushes 100 gallons per day down their toilet’s drain, the savings on our public water systems could be immense. And for all the talk of graywater solutions to reduce our water consumption, this is one of the most well integrated ones I’ve ever seen.

How it works:

1. Lavatory tubing

2. 12-Volt pump

3. Screen to filter out larger particles like hair and toothpaste

4. Disinfecting tablet dispenser

5. 5.5 Gallon Resevoir

6. 3/8″ hose and wire

7. Fill Valve

8. Water control unit delivers the treated, used water as primary source of toilet’s flush

9. Patented toilet bolts allow reused water to enter from the bottom of the toilet tank

And for a more interactive exploration of the function, check out the AQUS website.

Posted by Posted by: Casey Caplowe for Good.is

The people at Tappening want to change that. They want to make the single-use water bottle a thing of the past. If that makes sense to you, you can help by joining the organization, or by purchasing one of these permanent water bottles (which are BPA-free) or a new Tappening bag (which is made from recycled single-use bottles). There is also a bounty of informational resources to be found on the site.

Posted by: Patrick James for Good.is

For many of us, clean water comes with the twist of a faucet. But for 1 in 6 people, access to water requires hard work: hours of walking, waiting in line and heavy lifting.

The time spent fulfilling this basic need keeps many children out of school and prevents women from carrying out all the domestic and income generating work for which they are responsible. In rural Africa, it is often necessary to walk five miles (8km) or more every day to fetch water. In the dry season, it is not uncommon to walk twice this distance. Collecting water can be dangerous too. The traditional method of carrying water – carrying a 5 gallon (20 liter) water bucket on the head – can severely damage the spine, causing severe pain and even leading to complications during childbirth. In some countries, walking to find water exposes people to the dangers of land mines.

Many aid and charitable organizations are working hard to provide wells close to communities. But all too often, a lack of maintenance, mechanical failures and fuel shortages make these safe water sources inoperable. And during the dry season, wells are often unable to reach the water source for months at a time. As a result, women and children must collect water from ditches and streams that are usually shared with animals and teeming with pathogens. In developing countries, 4/5 of all illnesses are caused by water-borne diseases like dysentery and diarrhea, a leading cause of childhood death. Households headed by children and grandparents caring for their grandchildren have a particularly hard time meeting their water needs on a daily basis, increasing their risk for disease.

Hippo Water RollerThe Solution:

The Hippo Water Roller Project aims to improve global access to water by making it possible to collect 24 gallons (90 liters) of water- five times the amount possible using traditional methods – in less time and much more easily. The Hippo’s innovative design allows water to be placed inside its “wheel,” transforming 200 pounds (90 kg) of water to an effective weight of just 22 pounds (10 kg). This means that almost anyone can easily manage a full roller over most types of terrain.

Water buckets on headA single Hippo carries enough water to meet the basic needs of 5 people per day. Access to sufficient water enables people to practice better hygiene and stay healthy. The Hippo is manufactured from a high quality durable plastic and has a large screw cap, which allows users to thoroughly clean the inside. This is a large improvement on the toxic, re-purposed gasoline and paint containers that are typically used to collect water. In addition, Hippos make it possible for families and schools to collect enough water to grow their own vegetables using a technique known as drip irrigation. Education about water purification, good hygiene strategies and drip irrigation are all components of the Hippo Water Roller Project.

Fewer trips to collect water means women and children can spend more time on productive educational and economic activities. In addition, men are proud to be seen using a Hippo Roller, and many have assumed the role of water carrier for their families.

The daily burden of water collection undermines productivity, limits educational opportunities and traps households in poverty. The Hippo Water Roller is one of the few strategies that focuses specifically on reducing the social, economic and health consequences of carrying heavy loads of water over long distances.

The work of Hippo Roller International is made possible by a dedicated team of volunteers. Click here to find out about how you can help us make Hippos available throughout the world.

Source: Hipporoller.org

The creators of Boxed Water is Better say the packaging is more sustainable, and the carbon footprint for distribution is up to 80 percent smaller than with bottled water (I know, I was skeptical too—cartons are that much better than bottles?—but they have provided this moderately convincing PDF). To further back up their mission—”Creating a new bottled water brand that is kinder to the environment and gives back a bit”—they will donate 10 percent of profits to water relief foundations, and another ten percent to reforestation foundations (both TBD, according to their FAQ). This took a step away from “art project” and toward “commercial product” when it started distributing locally in Wisconsin.

Is this a half measure? It’s certainly not doing anything to curtail bottled water purchasing, which is a stated goal of many in the environmental movement. But I like solutions that don’t disregard the way people actually live their lives in favor of unrealistic (if not idealistic) proposals.

Posted by: Zach Frechette for Good.is

To help put things in perspective, think about this: your standard trash barrel holds 32 gallons and a mid-sized passenger car—if pumped full of water—has room for a little more than 800 gallons. So, the difference in the amount of water it takes to produce a pound of chicken and a pound of beef is enough to fill almost two whole cars.

Posted by Fogelson-Lubliner for Good.is
SOURCES: Department of Energy; H2OConserve; IEEE Spectrum; The Water Footprint Network

And getting your water shipped from Fiji turns out to be horrifyingly wasteful (surprise).

So why, asks The Economist, is bottled water so popular? Because, answers The Economist, bottled water is less likely to be contaminated or poisoned by terrorists.

Never mind the fact that they only cite cases in which bottled water was contaminated to make this point. If there were serious safety issues with public water, that would be a reason to improve regulations for public water, not expect everyone to buy bottled. Blimey.

Posted by Andrew Price for Good.is