Category Archives: Going Green

Ten Green Ideas That Work, Part I

The April 28 (2008) issue of MacLean’s had a great environmental article on “Ten Ideas That Work” that consisted of ten mini-articles that is definitely worth a read. Today we are going to cover the first five. They were:

  • A Better Way To Catch Some Sun
    Solar Power Farms
    In Nevada, a 140-hectare concentrated solar power plant went on-line in June of 2007 and is currently producing up to 134 Million kWh of electricity per year. While this is only enough electricity to power about 14,000 homes, it’s renewable and with current oil costs, concentrated solar power, which concentrates the sun’s rays on a single point (that generates temperatures up to 1,500 C) to heat a fluid that drives turbines, is not much more expensive than alternatives. (It’s not even a factor of 2 anymore!) And with oil prices rising, and solar power technology falling, by the day, I expect it will be break even for countries with the right climate within a year! (Deserts or semi-deserts with lots of sun is perfect – which describes just about every country at or near the equator!)
  • Turning Up The Heat in Japan
    Turn Down the AC
    In May 2005, the Japanese government changed the future of summer fashion by introducing Cool Biz, an initiative to lower carbon emissions from air conditioning that resulted in thermostats in all government offices being raised to 28 C (82.4 F) from June to September, with private companies urged to follow suit. Today, it’s the new normal for offices (with over 48% of companies complying) that have also taken up the new floral Okinawan shirt (which is the Japanese equivalent of the Hawaiian shirt) dress code.
    I think North America should follow suit, and keep thermostats at 25 C (77 F) in the warm summer months, and more importantly, keep thermostats at 17 C (62.6 F) in the cold winter months. Let’s face it – these temperatures are less than 20% off from what most of us consider room temperature, and if it’s 30 C (86 F), 35 C (95 F), or even 40 C (104 F) outside, 25 C (77 F) is refreshing. And in the winter, when it’s 0 C (32 F), -10 C (14 F), or below -20 C (-4 F), with a suit jacket or a sweater, 17 C (62.6 F) is balmy!
  • FreeWheeling in Paris
    Bicycle Rentals
    Last July, Paris launched a bicycle rental system and made 20,600 silver bikes in computerized stands available for rent by anyone. This is an idea that should be adopted by all small cities, urban-centers, and sub-urbs that are bike-friendly. But to make sure it takes off, I’d up the ante. I’d allow unlimited rentals for a small price per year (enough to cover the maintenance of the system and bike replacement). This would allow the program to quickly acquire, and maintain, enough bikes for everyone willing to use the system, and allow costs to be kept low. It would also deter thefts, because if anyone had unlimited use of a bike for a low price per year, who would buy one (and, hence, who would thievea sell to)?
  • Electric Cars on the Monthly Plan
    An Electric Car Network
    Shai Agassi’s Project Better Place recently signed a 42.3M project with Danish Energy Firm DONG to establish a network of electric cars in Denmark by 2011 in partnership with Renault-Nissan. The project is going to build 20,000 recharging stations nationwide and subsidize the cost of the cars by selling the service (recharging and replacing batteries) on a subscription plan. Each battery will be good for about 150 kms (93 miles), and when they run out, they can be swapped for recharged batteries at recharging stations. The goal is 100,000 electric cars on the road by 2010.
    This is another project that should be adopted world-wide, but the cars should be redesigned to hold 2 batteries (since much of North America lives in suburbia and 16-32 km (10-20 mile) drives to work and back are not uncommon), and get at least 320 kms (200 miles) per charge.
  • A Tax on Flatulence
    A Methane Tax on Farm Animals
    The problem with agricultural animals such as cows, sheep, and goats is that they (constantly) burp and fart methane, a gas that traps 21 times more heat than carbon dioxide. This adds up fast — the world’s meat industry is responsible for roughly 18% of total greenhouse gas emissions, which is more than the total greenhouse gasses produced by transportation world-wide. In other-words, despite all the complaining by the grippies (green hippies), your SUV is not the problem (especially if it is less than five years old and has a kick-ass catalytic converter that insures that the air coming out is actually cleaner than the air going in if you live in cities like Los Angeles or Beijing). It’s your addiction to meat and the fact that North American’s eat more than twice as much meat as the global average! (Now, I’m not suggesting that you should be a vegetarian, as I’m not, but I am suggesting that you could eat less meat. Once a day is plenty. We have lots of protein alternatives, and many experts agree that you shouldn’t eat red meat more than three to four times a week.)
    In an effort to deal with this problem, New Zealand introduced a “fart tax” on flatulent animals. It was eventually dropped after heavy lobbying, but I think it’s a great idea – as long as the price increases that will result are countered with price decreases (in the form of import tax reductions, production tax reductions, or just plain old subsidies) on alternative sources of protein. If we’re going to eat more than our fair share of meat, we should pay for the privilege, but the average working person, who is feeling the pinch of continually rising food prices, should not still be able to afford a healthy diet and, thus, alternative, greener sources of protein should be very affordable.
    In addition, the animals’ diets should be altered to keep methane production to a minimum and nitrification inhibitors (which prevents nitrogen from leaking from the soil and forming the greenhouse gas known as nitrous oxide) should be used, and New Zealand’s lead in tackling this problem in this manner should also be investigated.

In our next post, we’ll review the last five.

Cutting Carbon Footprints on the Country Level

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC published a report that called for a reduction in annual emissions from just under 50 billion tons of greenhouse gases today to 10 billion tons or less by 2050 to insure that the planet warms by no more than two degrees centigrade because even though there is uncertainty as to precisely how much damage is done by each ton of greenhouse gas that we generate, dramatic weather pattern changes in recent times have demonstrated that GHGs are damaging the planet, and that levels need to be reduced.

As noted in a recent McKinsey Quarterly article that addressed the issue of “what countries can do about cutting carbon emissions”, this report has spurred political leaders in some countries to action – with the European Union setting targets to reduce GHG emissions by 20 to 30% of the 1990 level by 2020 and some countries aiming to become carbon neutral by 2050.

But what will be required to reduce GHG emissions to that level? And which approaches will be most effective? In an effort to answer these questions, McKinsey has embarked on a multi-year research initiative and, to date, has taken a focused look at what can be done in Australia, Germany, the UK, and the US. To date, they have discovered that each country can reduce its emissions by at least 25% at little or no cost and without a significant change in the daily lifestyle of the populous. If this happened, it would be a great start when you consider that technology improves every year, and that focussed efforts will probably find another 25% in a few more years.

However, what really caught my eye in this article was their statement that many of the initial GHG reduction opportunities they identified are profitable. They noted that most of the reductions in this first 25% can be achieved through improved energy efficiency — better insulation, energy efficient appliances and machinery, and energy-efficient heating and cooling systems — which will also reduce energy requirements and, thus, energy bills. Furthermore, they also noted that there are also low-cost options to reduce GHG as well – coming in at less than $50 / ton. These options include improved fuel efficiency of vehicles (which should be possible, as we’ve all heard stories of non-hybrid and non-diesel test vehicles getting 50 mpg ratings, or twice what the average small sedan gets today), second generation biofuels (and not just energy inefficient corn-ethanol), better GHG emission management, wind power, solar power and, obviously, the planting of more forests. Considering that one hour of the sun’s rays contains more energy than the entire planet uses in a year – the construction of vast solar arrays in deserts could make quite a dent in our energy needs. And since it is the heat from the sun’s rays that causes the temperature differences between the land, water, and air needed to create wind, this energy is available even when the sun isn’t shining — and wind turbine farms can be used to capture even more of this energy. Considering the relatively high levels of carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt hour in North America, solar and wind energy farms could make a substantial dent in GHG emissions – and pay for themselves over their lifetime (as sunlight and wind is free while the price of coal, oil, and natural gas is now increasing by the day, if not the hour).

Now, as pointed out by the McKinsey article, these cuts are not likely to be sufficient in the long run, but they are a great start and technology that is not ready today, or technology that is still too expensive for widespread adoption today, will improve, and come down in price, over time — and chances are that by the time countries have exhausted the initial low cost options available to them, better technologies enabling more drastic reductions will be available at similar, if not lesser, costs. And there are even more low-cost options than the article mentions. For example, consider new landfill reduction trash processing plants, like the ones being built by Global Renewables, where 75% of the garbage is recycled or processed into a form in which they can be re-used and a considerable portion of the remaining waste is used to power the plant. The ideas being developed today are endless, and statistics dictate that some will be relatively low cost and / or deliver quick payback – making them very low cost in the long run.

An Introduction to Carbon Footprinting

This is a topic I’ve been meaning to write about for a while, but due to the depth required even in an introductory piece, and, thus, the time it would take to construct a post I’d be happy with, I’ve been putting it off until I had the time. I still don’t have the time, but Industry Week just published “The ‘What, Why, How and When’ of Carbon Footprinting”, which is a really good introduction to the topic. It’s five pages, but worth the read. I’ll highlight some of the key points below, and add a few of my own.

The article starts off by noting that H.R. 2764, signed into law by President Bush in December of 2007, contains a section that states that of the funds provided in the Environmental Programs and Management account, not less than $3,500,000 shall be provided for activities to develop and publish a draft rule not later than nine months after the date of enactment of this Act, and a final rule not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, to require mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy of the United States’.

This is a lot more innocuous than it may sound. This says that, by September of this year, reporting guidelines on draft emission standards will be drafted and, more importantly, by July of 2009, GHG emission reporting will be mandatory in the US – just like it is in Australia under the “National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act” of 2007. (And if you’re reading this down under and need help preparing the reports, there’s a new offering by Tradeslot Pty Ltd called Carbon Navigator that might be able to help.)

Chances are those guidelines will be similar to the mandatory reporting regulation that California is expected to introduce any day now, which is expected to be largely based on the GHG protocol Standards developed through a joint effort of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and the World Resources Institute (WRI), which is becoming the defacto Global Standard.

However, the introduction of legislation is not a bad thing. Collection of this data will help consumer and manufacturer alike! Consumers will have the power to differentiate between green claims and green reality, and the companies that are green in practice, and not just in advertising, will gain favor in the hearts and minds of environmentally conscious consumers. Furthermore, forward-thinking managers will be able to use the resulting data to reduce costs, drive efficiencies, and even open up new sales opportunities. Without the data collection effort that is required to properly tabulate and report emissions, Wal-Mart would have never figured out that the refrigerants used in its grocery sections contributed a greater percentage of its greenhouse gas footprint than its truck fleet!

So what is a carbon footprint? It’s a greenhouse gas emissions inventory that includes all of the greenhouse gases (methane, nitrous oxide, and HFCs) in addition to carbon dioxide that is generated by a company in its day to day activities.

How is it measured? The GHG Protocol specifies standard calculation methods and provides worksheets that a company can use to calculate its carbon footprint in a manner that can be compared in an apples-to-apples fashion with other companies. It has three scopes:

  • emissions from sources owned by the company
  • emissions from electricity purchased from the grid
  • emissions created by suppliers in the company’s value chain

The first time you do it, it will be a major undertaking. Eaton Corp. started doing ISO 14000 (environmental management) back in 2000, but wasn’t able to aggregate verifiable data until 2006. However, the article contains some advice from John Hoekstra of Summit Energy in implementing a program to document and report carbon footprints. It goes as follows:

  1. Know the Goal and the Road Ahead
    A formal plan lets you focus on the key data requirements.
  2. Set a Realistic Baseline
    Understand your operations and determine if it is possible to compile a historical emissions inventory that meets data materiality thresholds.
  3. Define the Boundaries
    Bite off what you can cost-effectively chew.
  4. Map out all of your Sources
    Identify each facility, asset, and potential emissions source.
  5. Make appropriate assumptions.
    Identify ways to calculate emissions that ensure completeness, but balance level of detail. Where possible, use the GHG Protocol as a guide.
  6. Centralize Data Management
    Data is the key.
  7. Be flexible
    The regulatory requirements are going to be in a state of formation and flux globally for some time. Be sure you can modify and enhance reporting processes and systems as required.and to this I’d add
  8. Be patient
    You’re not going to accomplish all of your goals overnight.
  9. Start Now!
    As per rule 8 above, it’s going to take some time – so get a jump start on it and you’ll be a leg up over the competition and that much closer to identifying cost savings opportunities that are environmentally friendly.

Until you’ve collected the data, you won’t know where your biggest offenses lie and where your biggest opportunities are. Consider the example of a life-cycle analysis on a 12-pack of glass bottled beer that found that 68% of the carbon footprint was due to supplied materials, and that glass bottles accounted for an astonishing 56% of the carbon footprint.

The life-cycle analysis that will be required as part of the carbon footprinting will pay off! Consider the recently published article “Life-cycle Analysis Pays Off” in the same publication that documented Caterpillar’s Life-cycle analysis project where they found that the remanufacture of a cylinder head reduced GHG emissions by 50%, energy usage by 80%, water usage by 90%, and material usage by 99%, when compared to the manufacturer of a new one.

Garbage In, Garden Out: Trash Processing Goes High Tech

Wired recently had a short, graphical, article, on the new trash processing facility in Sydney, Australia that was built by Global Renewables in its effort to shrink the millions of tons of recyclables that end up in landfills every year. A high-tech marvel of a processing plant that uses technology that includes wind sifters, optical scanners, magnets, and electrical currents, it is capable of diverting 75% of a city’s waste stream to recycling. This significantly cuts down on landfill space requirements, methane production (from rotting garbage), and greenhouse gas emissions.

The 6-step plus process, depicted in the graphic linked through the thumbnail below, is quite ingenious.

  1. Robotic Arms open the trash-bags (to prevent workers from injuring themselves on dangerous or hazardous materials) and then workers remove contaminants and toxic materials for safe disposal. The rest of the trash is allowed to proceed on a conveyor belt.
  2. A vacuum separates paper and plastic, which are separated by optical scanners.
  3. Electrical eddy currents subject the trash to a magnetic field which makes the nonferrous metals actually ‘jump’ into a bin.
  4. Electromagnets attract ferrous metals and a small belt channels the material into a separate chamber for compacting and resale as scrap.
  5. A computer-guided camera tracks paper and plastic and air jets blow the refuse into appropriate bins.
  6. What’s left is fed into a percolate tank and washed with warm water to dissolve readily soluble carbon and other organic compounds. The liquid enters a digester which turns the dissolved carbon into bio-gas to power the plant. A composting hall ferments everything else into fertilizer.

The Splendors of Scrap

Is it just me, or has the quantity and quality of sourcing and supply-chain related articles on Industry Week significantly increased in the first quarter of this year? I just stumbled upon another great article titled “Table Scraps” that noted that enterprising thieves have figured out that scrap means money, so why does the concept still elude some manufacturers?

The article quotes Mark Ripple of BBk Ltd. that notes that Most of the time, depending on what material you’re using, some plastics can be reground and reused, and some metal can be remelted or sent back to scrap metal suppliers … but a lot of suppliers I see are still just throwing away the bulk in a dumpster.” With some metals now commanding over $2,000 an ounce (like platinum), why would anyone waste even a gram (when it would be worth over $71)?

Supposedly, the scrap is disposed either because it’s not economical to re-use it, it’s not in a reusable form, or it’s just not part of the company’s culture. So what? Sell it to someone else who can reuse it or melt it down. If there are thieves willing to raid construction sites on what seems like an almost nightly basis, or gut unguarded vacant homes for metals – there’s obviously someone willing to pay a pretty two-penny for it. (By the way, a 211 year-old British two-penny coin in very good condition would net you over $30 on e-bay.)

The fact of the matter is that scrap sales can be worth tens of millions of dollars for a large manufacturer. The article notes that Shaw Industries, who made it part of their sustainable business model eight years ago, has recovered tens of millions of dollars just on waste-brokering activities. And on the off-chance the scrap you have really is waste, you could still create a waste-to-energy facility and, if it was based on vaporization, sell the slag that is created as a by-product. There’s just no excuse for waste.

This makes me wonder when government is going to catch on and enforce mandatory recycling of all recyclable materials. Over 90% of materials that is currently ending up in landfills is easily recyclable, but is not recycled because no government wants to be the one further contributing to today’s deficit by building a 9 or 10 digit recycling facility – even though they’d make money hand over fist reselling the materials to local, and global, manufacturers. Where I live, only about half of the plastic and metal containers that pass through an average household WITH recycling grades are allowed to be included in the weekly recycling pickup. Stupid. If the state or province where you live doesn’t have a facility, it should still collect them, compact them, and ship them to the neighboring state with an appropriate plant. Now I know the transportation would contribute to greenhouse emissions, but, unless you were shipping all the way across the continent, not nearly as much as the initial refinement and initial creation of some of these metals and plastics in the first place.

This also makes me wonder why we have junkyards for cars. I know the standard response is because North America doesn’t have an equivalent of the European ELV, but considering how much the metals in those wrecks are worth today, if I were a junkyard owner, I’d be hiring summer students with lots of aggression to work out (while they were waiting for the next sports season to begin) to break them down and then sell the scrap on the global market. But then again, I’m always trying to think logically and rationally and efficiently about problems …