Less than 5 miles from the Eiffel tower, a 120 foot cylinder rises into the air, not unlike the Egyptian obelisk a little further down the street. This is not a new art installation or a simple flag pole, however, but rather a modified piece of machinery more familiar with the drilling of oil, rather than the task at hand. The equipment is being used, in fact, for the purpose of harnessing the geothermal energy under the streets of Paris, a innovative undertaking considering it’s happening right in the middle of a major metropolitan city.

We’re no strangers to geothermal projects, however this one is a bit unique in that unlike most geothermal stations which utilize the subterranean heat to product electricity, this one will be used to frankly just recirculate hot water. While that might not sound terribly high-tech or sexy, looking at the details makes it a lot more appealing.

The hot water well they are drilling will dive down 1.7km, just over a mile, into the earth, where things are at a constantly balmy 57ºC. They will pump the water up from the depths which will heat a water reservoir at the surface, and then return it to the bottom to be heated once again. The surface reservoir will in turn pump hot water to nearby apartment buildings, most of which are heated with radiators. They plan to heat an impressive 12,000 apartments with this single well, including those of some buildings which will be completed in 2011.

They estimate that it will take approximately 100 days of constant, 24 hour, drilling to reach the desired depth, barring any unforeseen complications. The project will cost 31 million euros, about $40 million, 5 million euros of which are coming from the state environment agency (nice to see the government support green tech, eh?). It will also prevent 14,000 tons of CO² a year from being used through the burning of natural gas.

A Paris deputy mayor, Denis Baupin sums up their commitment and their vision for sustainable energy by saying “in Paris we’re trying to adopt a strategy in which France is largely behind other European countries, because we’ve under-invested in renewable energies.” A forward thinking stance that many other local governments should adopt.

via physorg

If you thought that manure was just for spreading on fields or in the garden, or just to provide an interesting smell during a drive through the country, it’s time to learn a thing or two. For years progressive farmers have been harnessing a byproduct of their animals’ manure,  methane, and turning it into electricity. Some farms with several hundred cows have even been known to power small communities. But what about our, ahem, byproducts, our own human manure? It is little different from that of a cow’s, save for perhaps a little less hay, and will produce methane in the right conditions, ripe for harvesting to be burned and used to generate power through natural gas plants. Several small projects already exist in the US, but the city of San Antonio, Texas, is the first to take on a project of commercial scale to do just that.

The process is quite simple, and we’re surprised that existing sewage treatment plants have not already adopted the practice as it would not only save them money, but also create an additional revenue stream, but it has now begun, and the city is planning on using the 140,000 tons of human waste to produce fuel to send to the open market. They estimate that this amount of waste will yield a massive 1.5 million cubic feet of natural gas (processed methane) daily. That’s a lot of gas, and one that will be an arguably close to carbon neutral, when burned in a natural gas power plant. Either way the combustion of the methane is a great thing for the environment. Instead of just letting the gas escape as it might do if unharnessed, it wil be used to provide electricity, offsetting the fossil-based natural gas that would otherwise take its place. Also, since methane is a much more dangerous emission than CO2 when it comes to retaining heat in the atmosphere, there’s another plus for cooling down the planet.

The city also expects to recycle about 90% of the material that goes down the drain in its bathrooms, the liquids being used for irrigation and solids into compost.

via Reuters

For most of us the summer is winding down and that unpleasant chore of mowing the lawn will be coming to an end over the next month or two. Unless of course you live in a sun-filled area year round, in which case the rest of us have little sympathy for your continued mowing. To complement our distaste for pushing the mower around, mowers also tend to spew out clouds of unmitigated exhaust which contributes, and more than you would think, to the quality of our air. The EPA, in its push to eliminate emissions from “nonroad” sources, is taking on small gas engines in the form of lawn movers, garden equipment, and even boat engines in a bit to tackle smog and general air pollutants.

While most people might not equate a small engine with smog or substantial emissions, their cumulative impact on the environment is quite large. These engines do not tend to have catalytic converters, a device used to lower emissions, commonly found in automobiles,and therefore can produce 4 times the amount of pollution than from a car per hour. These emissions include nitrogen oxide, CO2, unburnt hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, etc.. And since refueling is done at home, and with mostly 2-cycle engines, gasoline and oil are spilled regularly, to the tune of an estimated 17 million gallons of fuel annually.

Under the EPAs new regulations, “gas-powered engines in lawn and garden equipment will be required to cut smog-forming emissions by 35 percent, while engines in personal watercraft will have to cut smog-forming emissions by 70 percent and reduce carbon monoxide emissions by 20 percent.” The required comply-by dates are 2011 and 2010 respectively, a short time period that will make industry compliance a tricky thing, so we expect a certain backlash and accompanying lobbying.

Increases in efficiency, resulting from the new rules, are expected to save 190 million gallons of gas annually, a huge amount considering what it’s being used in.

via Reuters

While hybrids currently only represent a small portion of the automotive market, it is quickly growing amidst rising fuel prices and concerns over global warming. Some consumers even find it difficult to purchase a hybrid as wait times are long for popular models, and thus dealers are charging more. These difficulties may disappear, however, as a report released this week, Automotive 2020: Clarity beyond the Chaos, put out by IBM’s Institute for Business value, is saying that by 2020 all vehicles for purchase will be hybrids.

The findings in the report, based on interviews with 125 automotive executives covering 15 countries, show that finally, if slowly, attitudes and strategic shifts are changing within the industry. One executive noted that “in the next ten years, we will experience more change than in the 50 years before.” Certainly from a technological point of view this is entirely accurate as batteries, electrical regulation systems, fuel cells, biodiesel engines, and even the infrastructure to support these changes will need to be developed and improved, model over model. The surprising bad news of out this, depending on how you look at it is that fossil fuels will still comprise 2/3 of the market at that time, a great reduction from today, but one we were hoping to be even lower. Still, progress is progress.

The report also tells of the death of the inefficient corn-based ethanol, but supports cellulosic-ethanol production, made from inedible plant matter. Batteries and systems will be ubiquitous and the focus will be on improvement, but best of all, fuel cells, while remaining a “viable alternative”, will represent only a small portion of the market (hoorah!). What portion of the vehicles will be pure electric remains unclear, but with the quickly advancing technology in power storage, there is little reason to not expect an EV to run the distance of a present-day gasoline-powered car on a full tank.

The report follows Toyota’s announcement that all of their vehicles will have hybrid engines by 2020, but of course Toyota is ahead of the game when it comes to greener cars, so will competitors be able to boast the same claim by that time?

This is certainly not the type of news one generally looks forward to hearing, but today the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) released a report which estimates that approximately 21,000 Canadians will die this year from air pollution. In a country like the United States, with nearly 10 times the population and more heavily polluted areas, the toll would certainly be higher than an order of magnitude. Think also of countries like China, Indonesia, and India, where the air pollution is even more atrocious and where medical services do not exist for the majority of the lower-income population; the figures must be astounding. Often we write about new technologies that will limit or do away with CO2 emissions, allow us to become sustainable, and help us wean ourselves from oil, and of course the benefits of reduced pollution are a given, but this report certainly highlights the magnitude of the benefits to cleaning up our act.

Coal-fired power plants, petroleum-powered transportation, and heavy industry contribute to the majority of our air pollution, and while we are making progress on better substitutes with alternative energies (solar, wind, wave), electric cars, and sustainable industry, we should probably redouble our efforts. Often our politicians cite that cleaning up our environment is an expensive ordeal and that it would be disastrous to the economy, but the report outlines that the economic impact of the current level of air pollution results in $10 billion (CAD) because of absenteeism, higher health care costs, and other factors. And this is just in Canada.

The majority of deaths will occur among those aged 65 and older, and those susceptible to pulmonary illnesses, but young children will also be affected, some sustaining permanent afflictions which will hamper their later lives and continue to be a financial burden. So instead of worrying about some minor potential economic declines (some argue that cleaning things up will actually benefit the economy, which we think likely), let’s actually get out there and make some changes.

Since the world’s oceans are by far the largest carbon sink on the planet, they’ve been paid a lot of attention in recent years, not only as a gauge to measure climate change but also as possible repositories for excess CO2 currently floating in the atmosphere. Geo-engineering projects have been underway to increase the amount of carbon absorbed and sequestered by these waters, the most commonly known of which is iron-fertilization, a process where iron filings are dumped into the ocean to promote algal growth which absorbs CO2, dies, and then sinks to the ocean floor. That’s the idea anyway, and one which has not had a lot of success. A new method, however, shows some promise, though we will reserve our final thoughts on the matter once we see some more data.

The process involves using lime, obtained from burning limestone as pictured above, and releasing it into the oceans. Adding the lime, which is chemically calcium hydroxide, increases the alkalinity of the seawater. Since higher ocean acidity impedes the absorption of CO2, bringing it back to a more alkaline state is ideal. Shell, the Dutch oil multinational, is apparently impressed with the idea and has committed funding to determine the economic feasibility of the project, which is being developed under open source.

As mentioned, one must burn limestone to obtain lime. Depending on the source of fuel used, there is the potential of further CO2 to be released. We are assured, however, that for every unit of lime added, the ocean will be able to absorb nearly twice as much CO2 as was created to make the lime in the first place. What’s still unknown is what impact the increased levels of carbon in the oceans will have on marine life. The return to alkalinity will no doubt aid many stressed species, but unintended consequences remain to be seen.

via physorg

A lot of us would love to get our hands on wind power, but if we can’t put it in our own back yards, there’s generally not much we can do, other than investing in an energy company that has a small portion of its electrical generation from wind. There does seem to be another option, though, with the growing reality that is the community-owned wind farm. Groups like Windshare have been producing clean energy for years with a few turbines and interest (and community profit) are growing. Another such group, Dakota Wind Energy, based in South Dakota, has announced a major development underway for which it is offering up securities to the public (though only in SD) who will open up their land and grant wind-related rights to them.

Their planned wind farm will generate a massive 750 MW of power, and will be built in 100-150 MW phases, the first of which will begin construction within 3-5 years. Those who allow their land to be used or are under the “turbine footprint” could get a traditional cash payment, though the securities offer a much greater benefit. A wind turbine need not even be placed on ones property to receive the shares, so everyone in the community can participate and has a vested interest in the continued operation and success of the plan. This potential galvanization of the inhabitants of the region could remove the NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) state of mind, especially when the turbines (whether seen as ugly or not) bring a financial return with what is essentially no capital investment on the part of the owners. Not a bad deal.

LEDs, light-emitting diodes, are the future of household and commercial lighting, there is no doubt about that; they are way more efficient than even compact fluorescent bulbs (they also contain no mercury), use very little electricity, and last about 50,000 hours, meaning they’ll probably outlive us all. The question though, is when we’ll actually see them on the shelves next to the old news CFLs. The problem has been their cost. While you can get them, you’re probably looking to shell out around $30-50 for a single “bulb” that will put out the same light as a 60-watt incandescent, and well, that’s a tough sell for consumers. Researchers at Purdue university, however, have come up with a solution.

LEDs use a material called gallium nitride to create light, but unfortunately the current processes cost at least 20 times more than incandescents and CFLs to produce the same light output. The problem is that when LEDs shine, some of their light is lost, as the light will travel upwards into the bulb. A reflective surface would solve that problem but their reflecting surface, made of zirconium nitride, becomes unstable when in contact with silicon, causing a chemical reaction. By placing a layer of aluminum nitride between the two metals, they were able to solve that problem and redirect the light emitted to where it is needed.

The technique to accomplish this is quite complex, but common in the electronics industry. With this “reactive sputter deposition”,

“the researchers bombarded the metals zirconium and aluminum with positively charged ions of argon gas in a vacuum chamber. The argon ions caused metal atoms to be ejected, and a reaction with nitrogen in the chamber resulted in the deposition of aluminum nitride and zirconium nitride onto the silicon surface. The gallium nitride was then deposited by another common technique known as organometallic vapor phase epitaxy, performed in a chamber, called a reactor, at temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit.”

As complicated as that sounds, the good news is that with improvements such as this, LEDs will no doubt become cheaper in the years to come and reduce some of the 101 billion kWh used to light the United States every year.

via physorg

To be perfectly honest we’ve not been fans of hydrogen around here, in fact we’re pretty much against it for most suggested applications. The problem with hydrogen is that today the majority of it is produced from by-products of natural gas combustion which releases CO2 into the atmosphere, among other things. Other hydrogen production methods involve the intense use of electricity (coal, LPG, or nuclear-fueled) to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen. This process is inefficient and it would be much better to just use the direct electricity to accomplish what you need. We do admit though, that hydrogen will play a great role in some niche markets, which do not have easy access to electricity or it is unfeasible, such as in shipping, aviation, and other heavy transport. Thankfully researchers from Penn State have come up with a virtually carbon-free method of producing hydrogen.

Nanotubes, which seem to on the forefront of a lot of major research lately, such as the storage of hydrogen in nanomaterials as pictured above, are part of the solution. While the scientific background of the design is quite complex, it boils down to having a two different groups of nanotubes arranged in a photoelectrochemical diode. As the sun hits the diodes, they produce about 0.25 mA per centimeter square, not a lot, but enough. It actually represents about a 0.3% photoconversion efficiency, the amount of energy captured from the light, while typical solar panels are around 10-15%. The diodes, made of titanium dioxide and cuprous oxide (the green stuff on copper), act as n-type and p-type materials, essential in solar applications.

Since the materials are cheap and abundant, the diodes are also relatively inexpensive and they are looking at electroplating to reduce the cost further. Because of the materials they are using, they are able to absorb a much broader spectrum of light than normal, from 300 to 885 nanometers, capturing both ultraviolet and visible light. As the energy hits the diodes, the water is split and the oxygen and hydrogen can be found on a specific end of the diode. The only carbon involved in the process is that of mining and manufacturing the metals used in the diodes, but it produces none during use.

While the researchers admit that 0.3% isn’t a lot, they expect to reach efficiencies of 5-10%, nowhere near current hydrogen producing efficiencies, but at the cost of free sunlight and no CO2 emissions, this could be a part of everyone’s future.

via physorg

On Sunday Bombardier, a Canadian-based company that designs and builds mass transit vehicles, business jets and passenger planes, announced that it will roll out the first of its’ CSeries planes, one that is substantially more environmentally friendly that what we find in the air today.

The CSeries will rival the well-known 737 in passenger size, offering 2 models which carry 110 or 130 passengers respectively, but at a fraction of the cost and fuel use. They expect a 15% operating savings, and fuel savings in the high 20s compared to Boeing’s aircraft. Their plane, which Bombardier calls “game-changing” will also emit up to 20% less CO2 and 50% less NOx; flying quieter to boot.

They are also setting a new benchmark in the industry as the fuel needed to carry each passenger 100km can reach just over 2 litres, a strikingly low figure. A $46.7 million apiece though, it’s a pricey plane, but companies are already ordering them, showing that with $150 a barrel oil on the horizon, perhaps the fuel savings alone over the life of the craft will pay for itself.

Full Release