I did not notice large scale photovoltaic installations in Finland, but did see PV used to power emergency communications and off grid vacation homes in the country. See this summary by the IEA on PV in Finland, noting that most of the country's vacation homes are off the grid, representing a growing market for this technology. Fifty watts will power lighting, television and charge batteries for mobile phones, which are ubiquitous.
I'm off to Finland today. Conventional wisdom in the US argues that solar design for cloudy northern lattitudes, particularly photovoltaic power (PV), is not financially feasibile, or at least fiscally attractive. Yet, European countries with dreary climates, Germany in particular, have been leading adopters of PV. I'm hoping to see to what extent the Finns have adopted PV and how they've done it. I expect to find a combination of high utility rates for electric power and government subsidies other renewable technologies that make them viable options.
I'm interested in developing a line of bio based home furnishing products. And despite all the publicity over green design I have had no luck in sourcing commercial off the shelf bio resin products from any of the manufacturers featured in stories about bio resins, including the following.
UCB - Ebecryl 860 epoxidised soybean oil acrylate
Biocomposites and More - PTP epoxidised linseed oil and polycarboxylic acid anhydrides
Cognis - Tribest S531 epoxyacrylate triglyceride oligomer
Ashland Specialty Chemicals - Envirez 5000 - apparently licensed exclusively to John Deere
Phenix BioComposites - Environ - apparently a proprietary product used in their "bio board" products.
Cara Plastics - This company offers several different epoxidised soy resins but none appear to be readily available.
My own conclusion is that most of the products written up are actually non commercial prototype applications. I also believe that that most inventors/developers of bio resins, being industrial chemists and academics generally, have targeted the wrong first market. Instead of focusing on commodities such as Oriented Strand Board and similar building and manufacturing products as they have, they should instead target high end consumer oriented products to generate a "buzz" regarding their product. Consumers will pay more for cool, new green products; however OSB and sheet molding compound fly below most consumers' radar.
My approach is to try to craft a more exclusive line of products that will raise awareness of bio based products, and command premium prices. Awareness should then trickle down through the marketplace.
My coffee maker signals red; my toaster glows blue, my water faucet blinks green. LEDs are everywhere. What started as useful - and at the time - cool indicators on high end electronics, are now ubiquitous. I haven't counted, but there must be dozens around my home and office. We take them for granted; little nonverbal reminders that things are working - or not - as intended. Where farmers may have stood on the front porch a hundred years ago, scanning the pre dawn horizon for signs of weather to come, we now stumble downstairs for morning coffee, and subconsciously record system status from an array of winking diodes.
LEDs have made the transition to commodity; cheap enough to include within any consumer item that uses electricity. Or, in the case of my water faucet, practical to integrate, in conjunction with a chip, in any item where it might be useful to know what's going on. I'm not sure how I feel about all these little reminders - mostly I ignore them. But, as each trusty household item gives up the ghost and is replaced I know that there will more glowing and blinking in my kitchen.
The Challenge
Telecom planners often speak of the “first mile” as critical to making the connection with the customer. They’re referring to the connection between a home or office and a service provider’s switching operation.
Transportation also has the equivalent of a first mile. It’s a series of short destinations around a consumer’s home or workplace that don’t immediately justify the use of a conventional automobile, but stretch most people’s inclination to walk or bike. I call these Green Mile trips.
During the past decade a number of designers and startups have jumped into the short trip market with would - be solutions: each employing less than a conventional automobile. While many of these, including small electric cars, scooters and bikes, have been technically interesting, all have suffered shortcomings, and none has been an economic success. Put succinctly, walking and bicycling remain the simplest, cheapest solutions to short trips, and make the most environmental sense.
Yet, even in pedestrian and bicycle friendly communities people still rely on cars, particularly for trips of more than 10 minutes – or about half a mile distance on foot. Therefore, while I - and other - designers continue to look for new technologies that will fundamentally transform the Green Mile problem giving people a range of responsible options, I think we also need to pursue innovative approaches that will simply encourage people to walk and bicycle more. This will reduce pollution, congestion and noise, and improve health. While no one solution provides a magic bullet addressing all concerns, we think we have viable approach with the Green Mile System.
The Green Mile System
What if there was a way people could make measurable contributions to reducing global carbon emissions, and be economically rewarded for walking and bike riding. The Green Mile System facilitates this. Now people can not only feel good about making environmentally sound transportation decisions with local bike and pedestrian trips, they also can receive tangible rewards.
The System relies on three technical developments. The first is the recently initiated Chicago Climate Exchange, which essentially monetizes carbon emissions, and allows people to trade them in a market system. The second development is the availability of cheap electronic components that log information, such as bike and pedestrian mileage. And the third is the Internet, which facilitates access, exchange and consolidation of such information.
How It Works
The concept is pretty simple. After enrolling at the Green Mile website a user receives a USB linked pedometer or bike computer. Every time the user walks or bikes they log Green Miles beyond a certain baseline amount, that are recorded by their pedometer or cyclometer. Periodically, users plug their pedometers and cyclometers into their computers and upload their mileage to the Green Mile website. Their Green Miles are consolidated with others into credits in a “green power” pool which has been pre – certified. These credits are then traded on the Chicago Climate Exchange.
The user receives in return not only satisfaction for their contribution to environmental improvement, but also a small token of the proceeds of the transaction in the form of Green Miles redeemable at a major retailer online or otherwise.The more you pedal or walk, the more you earn. Unlike initiatives, using voluntary monetary contributions to purchase carbon credits, Green Mile participants actually earn their credits by pedaling or walking – and they get something of material value in return, in addition to psychic and physical benefits.
The incandescent light bulb; once ubiquitous and essential, transforming social and business life, symbolizing the bright idea. But how much longer will the bulb be with us, given developments in newer lighting technologies. The problem with incandescent lighting is that it is inefficient, converting only about 4-6 % of the power drawn into illumination, the remainder produced as heat. Halogen bulbs provide greater brightness and somewhat better efficiencies but they still hover around 14% at best.
Fluorescent lighting, highly efficient and cheap, dominates commercial lighting. At home, compact fluorescent bulbs have begun to replace incandescent. However, fluorescent drawbacks are fewer choices in lighting color and bulb shape, and a short warm-up period before full illumination levels are achieved. LEDs (light emitting diodes), also known as solid state lighting, have begun to make significant inroads in specialty applications; exit signs, automobile tail lights, camping and bicycle lights. There are bright, they last a long time; up to a 100,000 hours or the equivalent of almost 12 years of continuous illumination in some applications; they are as efficient on a watt/lumen (power to illumination output) basis as the best fluorescents; they work well in 12 volt and other DC applications, and because of the small wattages drawn they produce very little heat.
So, are LEDs the perfect illumination source? The answer is not quite, as there’s the issue of price to deal with. An LED equivalent of a 60 watt incandescent bulb costs about $75, or 50 times more than its conventional counterpart. Organic LEDs promise more stable white light over product lifetime and reduced costs but they are at least 5 years away in the consumer market. Thus, even with their extended lives, LEDs are not likely to replace lower priced counterparts for some time.
Message for Designers:
While solid state lighting will carve out a specialty niche, its first cost, which is as much as 50 times more than a comparable conventional bulb, makes it prohibitive in widespread household applications. We should keep looking for new applications of LEDs but industry will have to produce much them more cheaply before they compete effectively with fluourescent and halogen. In the meantime design spaces that utilize more daylight and replace those incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent and halogen.
The Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute has a lighting design center at http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/resources/news/enews/apr04/generalnews.html
My neighbor is digging a hole... and talking on the phone. In the park, a few minutes earlier, a guy was playing catch... and text messaging. It's impossible not to notice how many people have things in their ears - or busy thumbs - these days. Survey any street in a big city and you'll find at least a quarter of the population occupied with devices: cell phones, mp3's, PDAs, Blackberries, or the increasingly rare CD player. These folks are physically in our midst, but not entirely; their minds and ears, and perhaps hearts, are somewhere else.
What does this mean? That people are engaged in important, can't - wait communications, that they love music, that they don't like the sound of traffic, that they want to be in a world of their own, that they are hooked on data, that they are lonely and don't want to appear to be such? Check all that apply.
The process of communication at a distance started with letters about 3000 years ago when papyrus began to replace stone and clay tablets for written communication, making transport and exchange of documents much easier. But it has accelerated recently with dramatic speed and diversity of communication modes. Have we reached the brave new world of constant connectedness promised by Wired 10 years ago?
Incidentally, old Wired issues seem so quaint today, something like browsing Popular Mechanics issues from the 30's, autogyros navigating the skies over Gotham. I suppose the real present always makes the past's imagined future seem a bit naive.
So, what's the verdict on all these devices used by people, all these thumbs, and ear buds and dangling wires; are we plugging in to connect or plugging in to keep things out, connecting, or disconnecting? The answer, I think, is equivocal. We're doing both.
I've passed it dozens of times while walking my dog. A couple of years ago I almost made on offer in response to the For Sale sign in the window. It's a Citroen 2CV or "Deaux Chevaux" and unless you're French it looks like a very strange excuse for a car. Yet, I - and most designers - would say there's something very attractive about this goofy little ride. What is it that would have me even consider laying down a few thousand bucks for an automobile that will do barely 40 mph, with a canvas top, and all the crash protection of a tin can?
First, a little background. The 2CV is the French equivalent of the Model T. It was a cheap, sturdy and reliable machine that put cars within reach of the average Frenchman after World War II . More than 7 million were sold over about 25 years. A few, like the example above, made it to America, although in very small numbers.
What's to like about about the 2CV? First, it was cheap to buy, light weight and economical to run. On the technical side it had a simple, yet sophisticated suspension and handled well, when most American cars were massive; still sprung essentially like wagons, and barged along the highway. Comparisons with the VW Beetle are obvious. But, hard to believe, the Beetle possessed twice the power of the 2CV, and was a more substantial, and costly automobile. I don't think it's solely technical sophistication that contributes to Deaux Chevaux's appeal.
Undoubtedly part of what American designers like about the 2CV is the very otherness of the machine. It's simply different. Nothing like it came out of Detroit. America was simply too rich to ever seriously design and produce, or even purchase such a car. The 2CV stands as something uniquely French; emblematic of a nation struggling in a post war economy, desperate to put people on the road.
I like the the 2CV's goggle eyed headlights, the jaunty curves of the hood, roofline and windows, the flat, tinny door skins with handles that look like they belong on a 50s aluminum screen door. The whole thing's like a toy that's blown up to almost human size. It's light hearted; while seriously engineered, it's not pretentious, striving for a look of aggressive substantiality. One of the downsides of a global marketplace is that many products nowadays tend toward a serious and prosaic universal interpretation of design, losing much of their national or regional character. What we admire about the 2CV is that it retains a fresh and unmistakeable character. Vive la difference!
Carbon; one of the building blocks of life, but too much of it in the atmosphere and most life forms, including ourselves, face problems. Recognizing the issue, scientists, activists and governments began to discuss the matter seriously in the 1990's. And, even though the US is not a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol to limit green house gas (GHG) emissions, including carbon, the situation hasn't prevented others from taking steps to address this major global challenge. Among them, a private, free market initiative to manage emissions, the Chicago Climate Exchange, was created as an experimental markeplace to trade GHG emission credits, including carbon dioxide, the most important of the 6 gases named under the Kyoto protocol.
Organizations, such as Carbon Fund, now allow private citizens to purchase - and - retire carbon credits, contributing positively to global climate with a few mouse clicks. And, while it seems like an arcane topic for the making of art and an unlikely venue to report it, McKinsey Quarterly records that artist, Dan Peterman has created an art installation on the topic of carbon sequestration. The project links the amount of carbon released in a year of driving with that captured by a tree over a 100 year period.
Of course the best way to manage carbon in the atmosphere is to minimize emissions in the first place by using non fossil fuel energy technologies, and by capturing and sequestering carbon through the planting of trees. Carbon credits will be created as proxies for just such techniques, making them negotiable in a global market. Designers can participate at all scales in managing carbon in the atmosphere, by designing energy efficient products, structures and systems, that employ low VOC (volatile organic compound) finishes and recycled, and/or reusable materials, among other strategies. The Canadian government has sponsored the development of free software to evaluate various solar and renewable technologies, including their contribution to greenhouse gas reductions. See RET Screen International to learn more.
As a designer, I view composites with some ambivalence. Composites are combination materials - generally using a fiber, such as glass, kevlar, carbon, etc. that provides tensile strength, in conjunction with a resin matrix, such as polyester, vinyl, or epoxy. On the upside, composites form compound shapes often unobtainable with other materials, and offer terrific strength - to - weight characteristics, but they don't recycle well, making them problematic as materials in the green designer's toolbox.
The aerospace industry pioneered composite materials and applications. The most famous composite consumer product is the Corvette, introduced in 1953, which continues to use a fibreglass body to this day. Aircraft are fabricated increasingly from composites, including various combinations of carbon and kevlar fibers. Sports equipment, such as skis, tennis rackets, bicycles, often features composite construction. And, composites have begun to make inroads within the building and construction industry (see Composites News for the latest developments). It's not uncommon to see exterior decking for homes made from recycled polyethelene and wood fibers, or even bridge structural members featuring kevlar and epoxy. In these applications composites exhibit durability, strength, and often light weight, when compared to conventional materials.
The big problem is what to do with the stuff when its original purpose has been fulfilled. By definition composites are amalgamated materials, bonded to each other, and not easy to separate. Thus, unlike a wooden structure whose pieces can be mechanically separated and reused or ground and pressed into other products, or a metal assembly which can be taken and apart, melted down, and turned into as - new pieces, composites generally face a one way ticket to a landfill, where they don't decompose readily. Lower value composites, such as fibreglass (generally polyester, viny, or epoxy resins reinforced with glass fibers) present particular problems since their component materials are cheap to begin with and there are few economic uses for a pulverized mixture of glass and resin. However, higher value composites, using carbon and Kevlar (aramid) fibers, while still not easy to recycle, present greater potential for reuse. When ground up, these fibers, which originally can cost as much as $60/meter, may be added to polyeurethane or epoxy resins, improving product strength, and remaining in the product stream. But widespread recycling is still not common.
Plant - based resins such as those derived from soy protein, and new fibers from corn and other plants, are beginning to enter the composites marketplace. They promise high performance and a world of more readily recyclable composites. In the meantime designers need to think twice about the recycling issue as they contemplate and specify today's high performance - but - tricky to re-use composite materials.
In case you didn’t know, there is a global shortage of the silicon material used in solar photovoltaic (PV) panels. Solar manufacturers must compete with the electronics industry for silicon stock, keeping PV prices high and supplies short. Most global producers of PV, such as Sharp, GE Solar, and Schott are operating at capacity and expect to do so for the next few years. Further contributors to the shortage are exacting silicon wafer manufacturing requirements that limit rapidly scaled - up production. Thus, the prognosis is uncertain for truly economical and readily available PV for residential and commercial power production in the near future.
However, in recent years several ventures have tried to bring high volume, roll printing technology to bear on the PV manufacturing process. Instead of slicing silicon wafers from bricks in a technically demanding and wasteful process and placing them on a stainless steel substrate, the new technique prints a very thin film of silicon on a roll of foil or polymer substrate, running through a web press in a long ribbon. The expected results of the new process would be greatly improved utilization of the scarce silicon resource, vastly improved production capacity, and lower cost.
In late June, Nanosolar Inc. based in Palo Alto, California, announced completion of a total of $100 million in financing for a 430 megawatt PV manufacturing facility using roll printing technology. If Nanosolar and other competing roll printing technologies can deliver on their promises with respect to volume and cost the PV industry may be able to meet the U.S. Department of Energy’s goal of achieving price parity for PV with conventional power sources by 2012. This will be a welcome development for electric ratepayers.
I just just replaced, on short notice, the hot water heater in my 1910 rowhouse in Washington, DC. Though hardly a glamorous topic, this process is illustrative of some of the issues facing energy conscious consumers.
Now, back to the story. Since I work in energy efficiency, my first thought when the old unit failed was to install a high efficiency, tankless heater. By going tankless there would be no keeping water warm until needed. It only would heat what was required, it had a small form factor, etc.
I ran this idea by my plumbing contractor and he had several arguments why this wouldn't be the best idea. Among them, that the gas line running through my house to the existing water heater wasn't large enough for a tankless heater, which requires a high btu burner. Since that line ran behind the walls in my basement, not only would a new larger line be necessary, the walls would also have to be torn out to install it. The resulting job would cost a thousand dollars or more than a conventional storage heater and would probably never pay itself back. So, not surprisingly, I went with a replacement of the old tank.
The moral of this story? Some types of energy efficiency measures, particularly retrofits like the one I contemplated, can be very expensive. Just because something saves energy doesn't mean it's right for your home, lifestyle and pocketbook unless you simply must have the item. Consumers should choose cost effective measures first, like insulation. However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with purchasing a high efficiency appliance or building system even if it doesn't pay back - you are saving energy and improving the environment and can feel good about that. But do the numbers to see what it will actually save you, or don't do the numbers and buy it because you simply like the idea of it.
BTW, this is not a criticism of tankless units; under the appropriate circumstances, such as a small household with infrequent hot water needs and convenient and correctly sized existing gas piping, or in new construction they may make both dollars and sense.
My next project is a photovoltaic (PV) retrofit of my home. PV is the future of power, and may always remain just that without substantial cost reductions occurring in PV production and installation. I am under no illusions that this exercise will pay back in conventional terms, but the economics, including available subsidies, tax credits, and logistics will be interesting. Stay tuned.
