Hybrid Living

Busses are greener than cars, and apartment buildings are greener than houses. But is a 747 greener than a Cessna? Is an interstate greener than Route 66? Is a 55 inch flat screen greener than a 20 inch tube television? Is a cruise ship greener than a pontoon boat?

There’s been some focus on going green by going bigger recently. But often, efficiency just becomes one more pathway to profligate waste. Let’s take interstate highways as an example here, since they’re both the solution to and cause of so many of our problems.

Let’s say you wanted to move a 100,000 cars from one city to the next city before interstates. The gridlock would have been tremendous. Cars would have idled for days, travelling at low, inefficient speeds with start and stop traffic that would have wasted a huge amount of gasoline. With interstates, those 100,000 cars can speed along a seven lane highway at efficient speeds without ever tapping the breaks. Highways are much more efficient.

Of course, before Atlanta had seven lane highways, no one was driving 60 miles to work every morning. The waste per mile driven has dropped dramatically, but much more dramatic is the rise in miles driven. In the end, interstates led us to build our cities in an extremely unstable way that I believe is responsible for a great deal of the current economic turmoil in the world, not to mention an unstable global climate.

This story re-plays itself over and over again. Technology lets us build more efficient televisions, so we make them gigantic. Technology allows us to build the Airbus A380, with room for 853 passengers, by far the most efficient plane per passenger mile, and suddenly a billion more people can afford air travel. Technology allows us to build a cruise ship that holds 6,300 passengers, transporting them with 30% less fuel per passenger, and there are 6,300 people eating crab cakes and surfing on artificial waves on a boat that’s too big to dock anywhere in Europe.

Bigger is greener when you’re replacing needs that were met inefficiently elsewhere. If you’re getting someone on a bus instead of in a car, or in an apartment building instead of a house, that’s greener. But if you’re creating new and exciting ways for people to over-consume efficiently or, worse, unsustainable infrastructure that will only lead to an unstable future for our world, then bigger is better for someones wallet in the short term, but bad for us all in the end.

From my perspective, they very fact that this is possible is the news here. It’s a “reading” lamp that can be powered by a phone jack. That’s right, your phone jack has a tiny amount of power that comes through along with the phone signal to power things like ringers and speakers and microphones. I imagine that the light output of this thing is pretty pathetic, honestly. I haven’t seen any in use, but just looking at the price (less than $6) and the LEDs the thing has got makes me think this isn’t going to assist all that much with reading, unless it’s very dark out and you REALLY want to find out whether Robert Langdon is really dead.

There are a couple of other advantages to the lamp. First, these phone jacks are the most standard plug in the world. While everybody has a different outlet for power, almost every country uses the same phone jack. Second, when the power is out, often, phone lines are not, meaning this could be a way to have some light during an emergency. And, finally, what could be the most appealing reason to uses this ugly, cheap, and insignificant source of light is that the power you pull from telecoms is free. They pay for it…you don’t. Now that I think of it, it’s probably against the TOS agreement you have with the phone company, but there are no meters, so they’ll never know. You can use all of the (really insignificant amount) of electricity you want to power this lamp, and you’ll never get charged for it.

Buy it Here

Dell is doing it again, this time on-site, with a series of solar trees that will not only help power it’s headquarters in Round Rock, Texas, but also serve to charge electric vehicles parked there. Of course, there aren’t currently any electric vehicles parking in the Dell lot, but hopefully that will change in the next few years.

The solar trees were put in place by Envision Solar, who’s work we’ve seen at Google Headquarters previously.The Dell installation will provide 130,000 kW/h per year and shades the parking spots of the 56 employees who get to the lot first. Everyone else gets punished for being late by having to park in the sun.

The project uses more than Envision’s technology though. The charging points are provided by Coulomb Technologies while the solar panels themselves were manufactured by BP Solar. All together, they made themselves (and Dell) a pretty sexy-looking parking lot. Hopefully we’ll see a lot more of these in the future.

Via Jetson Green

I’m a conservationist. I was a conservationist before I was an EcoGeek. There is very little land on earth left in a sem-natural state, and I believe that we should keep as much of that land as natural as possible forever. Unfortunately, that belief does sometimes collide with my belief that we need to increase renewable energy production as fast as possible. The Nature Conservancy estimates that renewable energy will occupy some 73,000 square miles of land by 2030, meaning that renewable energy could be the biggest threat to land conservation in America. The only thing that comes even close is real estate development.

Renewable energy has a leg up on real estate though, because renewable energy projects can be sourced on public lands fairly easily. And these public lands are the very lands that are the only untouched areas of America we have left.

And, of course, this discussion ranges beyond individual projects. A wind power project might be built in the middle of a corn field, but in order to get the power form the corn field to a big city, transmission lines have to be built, and often built through prime wildlife habitat. It’s starting to seem like land conservation is the biggest threat to renewable energy as well as vice versa.

So where do we come down?

Well, there’s good news and bad news. The good news is that the 40 year old NEPA process provides a structure for determining the environmental impact of a project on public lands, taking public comments on those projects, and determining whether the project should go forward. Despite some outcry, this process has served America surprisingly well over the last 40 years.

The bad news is that the NEPA process is not what you would call perfect. It can be an extremely long, drawn out process, and if there are significant concerns, it can be held up in court for years. Additionally, as the number of renewable energy projects increase, the staff working these environmental assessments (already strained) will start backlogging projects as we’ve already seen in many areas of the country.

Renewable energy and conservation both require vast areas of land to be effective, so they are always going to be somewhat at odds. There is no way to avoid this conflict or claim that one always needs to take precedence over the other. It’s going to be frustrating to have to watch pristine land get developed, and renewable energy projects get cancelled, but through my experiences in the environmental field, I actually believe we’re going to handle this fairly well. Let’s hope I’m right.

In the last few years, electric vehicles have gone from a dream to the next logical step for vehicles. Of course, the future of EVs is still being debated, but IBM is using its cash and influence to push for an electric vehicle battery that can carry a car 500 miles without recharging.

500 miles is a long way, longer than most gasoline engines. And while the batteries might still require a long charge at the end of those 500 miles (longer than a five-minute gasoline fill up) it would still be a tremendous advantage over the 100 mile range of today’s EVs.

There are a few paths to getting around this range problem. One is GM’s “extended range electric vehicle” idea, which puts a gasoline generator in the car to recharge the batteries when they run low. Another is Shai Agassi’s “Better Place” model, which has battery swapping stations scattered around the country for when you need a quick re-charge.

The third and most obvious option is to wait for battery technology to get good enough to satisfy the demands of drivers. IBM, sick of waiting, is pushing this direction hard. The project is called the “Battery 500 Project” and it focuses on advanced battery chemistries that will increase the “power density” of batteries. IBM’s “Big Green” project last year asked for submissions for big green ideas, and the winning submission was the “Lithium Air Battery” which is what the Battery 500 Project will be focusing on.

Conceptually, lithium air batteries use lithium as the anode and oxygen as the cathode. Because oxygen would be fed into the battery from the surrounding air, the cathode would, in effect, be weightless. And because oxygen is available on demand, the only limiting factor is how much contact the battery can make with their air. That’s where IBM’s expertise comes in, they want to take their high-tech, nano-scale semiconductor manufacturing experience and use it to dramatically increase the surface area of the anode.

IBM is estimating that it will take two years to determine whether this technology is feasible. But even if that means it’ll be five years before they hit the market, this will still be a huge breathrough for power storage technology.

Via Engadget

For those of you who don’t know, there’s a company out there that’s attracted the interest of venerable venture capitalists, established corporations, politicians, and even a few bloggers with claims that seem nearly impossible. Now, this isn’t Steorn, it’s not free energy. What they’re talking about is possible without re-writing the laws of physics. But what they say they can do would change things. A lot of things.

EEStor says that they are working on an “electrical energy storage unit” (EESU – explained in more detail here, if you’re curious) that would hold ten times the amount of power as todays most advanced batteries at the same weight. This  storage unit would be able to charge and recharge infinitely without any loss of capacity and charging time (with enough power) could be brought down to three or four minutes. The storage units can be infinitely stacked together for applications as small as watch batteries and as large as grid-level power storage. And, of course, the technology is 10 times cheaper than lithium ion batteries. In short. it all sounds too good to be true.

I wouldn’t even be wrting about this if EEStor didn’t have investments from very smart people and contracts with very large companies. But that doesn’t mean I’m not still skeptical. Smart people have been duped before. But because EEStor has been in the news an awful lot, and their strategic partner ZENN Motors says that they will be putting these devices into cars by early next year, let’s try and figure out what this would mean for the world.

1. Electric cars, of course, would become much more practical. While the EESU wouldn’t be able to charge in 5 minutes at home with a 220 volt plug, it could charge in five minutes at high-power charging stations. This infrastructure would have to be built however, and the technology isn’t cheap. Just like hydrogen or ethanol or Better Place’s battery swapping stations, EESU’s would require new infrastructure. The only electric vehicles that do not require new infrastructure are cars designed not to travel out of the city and cars with on-board, gas-powered generators like the Volt.
2. ZENN Motor company currently has exclusive rights to put EESU’s in four-wheeled vehicles that weigh less than 3,000 lbs. ZENN will likely sell those rights fairly quickly if the EESU pans out. If they don’t, we’ll be stuck with lithium ion for a while anyway.
3. However, companies working on next-generation batteries for electric vehicles, including A123, LG Chem, GM, Tesla, Toyota and many more, will find themselves with a lot of useless research on their hands. Lithium ion batteries will never hit the numbers EEStor has claimed for it’s EESU.
4. Battery swapping technology may or may not become completely obsolete. Project Better Place’s system of swapping out batteries to reduce the need for charging batteries could be used for EESU’s instead of batteries. However, it’s difficult for me to imagine that high-power quick-charging infrastructure wouldn’t be far cheaper than battery-swapping facilities.
5. Renewable energy sources would become much more viable. Currently, options for storing power generated during windy or sunny times of the day are limited and inefficient. An EEStor grid-level battery could store power for use at other times during the day at a comparatively low cost.
6. The world might actually see a significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions because of the EESU.

Let’s remember, there are a lot of “if”s here. EEStor’s technology could be viable, but costs could rise, imperfections could be found. It’s very possible that the EESU will hit the market and lithium ion batteries will remain competitive with the new technology. Time will tell…I’m looking forward to it.

India’s Reva electric car company has been producing low-speed, low-cost electric vehicles for it’s home country for sometime now. Now they’ll be launching two new models and some very peculiar sounding charging technology at the Frankfurt Motor Show.

The new modles include the NXR, a four-seat, three-door “family car” and the NXG, a two-seat sportster (with a removable roof!)

The “family” NXR will be available in 2010, and Reva will be taking orders for the car at the show. Unfortunately, we don’t have numbers on range or top speed, for those of you who might be there and interested in ordering one. The NXG, on the other hand, is slotted for 2011 release.

In addition to this somewhat exciting, but not-too-unexpected news comes the announcement that Reva will be releasing a new charging technology called “REVive.” According to their press release, the system will allow you to text REVA for an “an instant remote recharge should they run out of charge.” Unless Reva has solved one of the 21st centuries most pressing problems (wireless energy transfer) then this is just a reserve tank that’s already in your car, but doesn’t get released until you text it.

It’s a psychological trick, and a bit of a silly one, but with the amount electric vehicles are complaining about “range anxiety” I’m willing to give them credit for trying something new.

Via AutoBlogGreen

Europe has officially begun it’s ban on incandescent light bulbs, a ban that promises to save some $7 Billion a year in energy costs. Stores are allowed to continue selling their current stock, but they can no longer buy any more bulbs to sell. And while the EcoGeeks rejoice, others have flung up their arms in despair and cannot imagine a world where we don’t light our world with tiny little space heaters. So, with a ban looming in 2012 for the U.S., it’s worth taking a look at how Europe is handing the switch.

Among the reasons that people are upset include:

• It will be very expensive to change the lighting system on fair rides, so expensive that those beautiful spectacles may never again light up the night sky.
• Lighting systems for galleries are very precisely tuned and artists and curators alike have very specific needs that (apparently) sometimes require incandescent lights.
• People who suffer from “anxiety” believe that the bulbs harm them or their children.

None of these issues seem particularly difficult to deal with. If you’re really worried about your bulbs, I’m sure there will be ways to get them in a somewhat legally-gray way. But for those people who just want to replace a lightbulb and head to the nearest store (99% of people) the gains in efficiency will likely not be affected measureably by this.

I say, let the market provide incandescents for those who are angry enough to go to russian websites and order the bulbs with a $10 shipping charge on top. And sure, folks will stockpile, but the change is being made and the energy will be saved. That’s what matters, and I’m excited to see what the boom in the markets for LED and CFL bulbs will do for the technologies.

In space, there are no clouds. In fact, there’s nothing at all between a giant solar panel and the rays of the sunlight. It’s even possible that a solar satellite could collect energy 24 hours a day. Which is why solar is such a great resource in space.

Unfortunately, we haven’t been able to build an extention cord long enough to get that power back to the ground. So solar power in space doesn’t seem destined to help power toasters down here on Earth. But now several start-ups and government space programs are seriously considering space-based solarpower projects. These power stations would collect power in space and then beam it through the admosphere using high-energy radio waves or lasers to collectors down on earth.

The most recent player is a collaboration between Mitsubishi Electric and IHI that, along with the Japanese government, wants to launch the first mission in 2015 and have the satellite operational by 2030. The costs are just as astronomical as the project itself, of course, roughly $21 billion. A similar project by the US government guessed that a 10 MW plant would cost $10 billion. So the Japanese project has cut the estimated per-megawatt price by a lot. That would be good news if it wasn’t 20 years off and ten times more expensive than solar thermal power stations.

I for one think that this isn’t the solution we’re looking for. A gigawatt of power in 2030 is a bit off my radar, to be honest. I’m looking for something that can deliver 100 gigawatts by 2030. Cheaper solar, high-altitude wind and sophisticated geothermal seem a lot more feasible to me. I’m interested in hearing all solutions that people have to offer. But to be honest, this seems a bit like big kids playing with big toys to me.

Via Earth2Tech and Bloomberg

Neodymium, lanthanum, dysprosium. They don’t have the same ring to them as gold and platinum, but they could very well be the high-cost, rare elements that define our environmental future. Neodymium, for example is essential to electric motors in hybrid and full-electric vehicles and is also used in the generators in wind and tidal turbines.

It’s a sign of the times. As we continue to use our brains to figure out better ways to create and use electricity, we need more and more rare metals that, ten years ago, were hardly used at all. Indeed, in the next few years, demand for rare earth metals will likely outstrip supply by about 40,000 tons. Unless, of course, a lot of new supply comes online very quickly.

Most of the world’s rare-earth metals come from China, but China is starting to use more and more of its supply while exporting less to the rest of the world. Toyota, with their 70% market share in hybrid vehicles, is starting to get worried. Every Prius electric engine uses 1 kg of neodymium and every Prius battery uses 10 kg of lanthanum. Of course, those numbers will get higher as Toyota expands the range of the car.

Different batteries with different chemistries might use more or less of certain metals, but there’s no doubt that new sources are going to have to be opened up for production of these rare metals. Already mines in Canada and California are slated to open or expand for the production of rare-earth metals. Of course, that’s mixed news for the environment. Mining is, of course, extremely destructive to local areas, but the elements being mined could lead to a significantly more stable planet overall. Of course, the choice is likely one our economy will make for us.

One can hope that these problems will be solved the same way they were created, with our brains, and not with our mining rigs. Battery chemistry that uses no lanthanum isn’t far off. Though it’s hard to imagine an engine or generator that doesn’t use neodymium’s magnetic properties. But one can always hope.

Via Reuters