If you’re off grid but still needing to use AA-style batteries, wouldn’t it be great to be able to add more juice just by shaking them up a bit? That’s what the Mint Energy Rechargeable Battery concept would allow us to do…just use a little “shakenergy.”

Essentially, the idea takes the recharging component of a hand-crank battery charger and puts it inside the actual battery. Shaking it charges it up. It’d be a back-up solution, with the battery still able to be charged with a non-shaky charger.

As with all of these new battery concepts we have to ask two big questions: 1) How is the battery being easily recyclable and non-toxic incorporated into the design? and 2) Why not spend energy designing products that don’t need batteries at all, instead of designing batteries that will eventually be part of a waste stream?

Still, it’s a kinda cool idea for taking the bulky crank charger out of the picture altogether, and makes the battery part of the fun of using toys and devices. But for now, choose the greenest rechargeable batteries that you can.

Credit: Treehugger

Visit: Ecobcil

They call it the Net-Zero Energy home. It has ground source heat pumps (promising a 30% reduction in energy use), photovoltaic arrays, supplementary wind power, high efficiency appliances and battery storage, all talking to each other through a Home Energy Manager.

That’s a lot of impressive technology. But are green gizmos the best way to achieve net zero energy?

GE says that the net-zero energy house will cost 10% more than a conventional house. That’s a lot of money; if people would pay that much for extra insulation and better windows they would probably save 30% of their energy costs without fancy heat pumps. But they won’t, and when builders offered it, few took them up on it.

Justin Moresco at earth2tech put it really well:

GE’s emphasis on next-generation gadgets and gizmos risks masking the dirty little secret behind green building design — that the construction industry already has on hand, but has largely failed to deploy, the tools to make homes and other buildings much more energy efficient than they typically are today.

Moresco notes that Passivhaus design easily achieves 80% reduction in energy use without any high-tech gizmos, just insulation, tight envelope and orientation.

The fundamental difference between smart green building designs and GE’s approach is the former’s emphasis on energy efficiency over energy production and other high-tech gadgets. As Graham Irwin, principal of Essential Habitat Consulting in Fairfax, Calif., told me, “There are already tools to get us to net-zero energy. The emphasis should be on efficiency first.”

Green design often means higher upfront costs, and an historically complacent public regarding energy use allowed the construction industry to continue with business as usual, even while better solutions were available.

General Electric has the kind of reputation that can make this kind of hardware mainstream, and can generate a volume big enough to support an infrastructure of sales, installation and maintenance that doesn’t exist today. There are tens of thousands of existing houses that can be upgraded with it.

But if you are starting from scratch, it is better to design so that you have less expensive technology to pay for and maintain, not more. Go for efficiency, not green gizmos.

Credit: Treehugger

Visit: Ecobcil

A Google data center in Belgium is taking a cool, new approach to keeping from over-heating on hot days. The facility has no electricity-sucking chillers to support its cooling systems, relying instead on air from outside. Google anticipates this so-called “free cooling” for all but about seven days per year, but what’s really fascinating is what happens when the weather gets hot.

Quest for Energy Efficiency Back-Story

Chillers used to refrigerate water to cool data centers require, no-duh, a large amount of electricity to operate. This has led to the approach “free cooling:” air from outside the data center is used when the temperature is cool, while falling back on chillers on warmer days. Google’s data center near Saint-Ghislain, Belgium completely eliminates chillers altogether. Bonus: an on-site water purification facility allows for the use of water from a nearby industrial canal rather than a municipal water utility.

So what happens on hot weather days?

Google will turn off equipment as needed in Belgium and shift computing load to other data centers.

The end-game of this approach is what cloud technologists refer to as “Follow the Moon” energy management. Were large-scale networks such as Google to implement this concept, workloads would be seamlessly shifted between data centers to take advantage of lower costs for power and cooling during overnight hours. Virtualized workloads would be shifted across data centers in different time zones to capture savings from off-peak utility rates. Cool!

Credit: Treehugger

Visit: Ecobcil

Award-Winning Design Demonstrates Responsible Small Gardens
TreeHugger has long argued against the ridiculous notion that every house needs a paved, impermeable driveway. From urban heat islands to storm water runoff, the problems with paving are becoming ever more apparent. But often folks with small front gardens, and congested neighborhoods, feel they have little choice but to create some off-street parking for their vehicle. That’s why I love, love, love this award winning rain garden design from Wendy Allen. Not only does it feature a green roof, FSC certified lumber and a permeable driveway – it also promotes electric vehicles!

Named as the Gold Medal winner for Best Sustainable Garden Award at Hampton Court Palace Flower Show in London, Wendy Allen’s design proves that people can make a big difference, even in relatively small spaces. Apparently the project uses a lot of reconstructed and reclaimed materials, as well as certified lumber – and Wendy is clearly joining the dots by showcasing a G-Wiz/Reva electric vehicle as the transportation mode of choice for such urban dwellings. (I can’t tell if there is a bike rack nestled in there somewhere too, but I hope so!)

The garden has been specifically designed for dismantling and reassembly, and will be open until tomorrow (Sunday 12th July), after which it will be auctioned off for charity. More details of the show at Hampton Gardens Palace Flower Show.

Credit: Treehugger

Visit: Ecobcil

What’s the Carbon Footprint of the Antique Industry?
I’ve been told I think too much. (Though I’ve also been told the opposite is true!) From musing over whether carrots are vegan to wondering about the true cost of my rural green living, it could be fair to say that I take this sustainability stuff a bit too seriously sometimes. My latest predicament is this – my wife and I love to buy antique furniture – especially as we prepare ourselves for our first child. It’s green, right? I mean what could be more sustainable than buying furniture built to last, and reused over-and-over again? The trouble is, I’m not so sure…

You see, the more I get to know about the antique trade, the more I find out how far dealers will travel to find salable pieces. And as we all know – travel has a high carbon footprint – especially if that travel is done in a private car or van, as opposed to a shipping container or a truck that is packed for maximum capacity. So is a truck-load of flat-pack Ikea furniture really any more polluting than 12 vans full of ancient artifacts? How do we weigh efficiency of transportation against durability and longevity, or emissions in manufacture?

In the spirit of what counts for research in this cyber-age, I’ve done a few google searches for the carbon footprint of antiques, and have pretty much drawn a blank. I did find this campaign in the Antiques Trade Gazette that claims that antiques are indeed green. While the general premise of the article – that antiques are a form of recycling, makes total sense – I would question the advice that this dealer gives to customers that “no additional greenhouse gases [are] being produced as a result of their purchase, no rain forests will be depleted or additional raw materials used.” The item had to come from somewhere, and often that somewhere is a long way away. I am pleased to note, however, that the campaign also includes an element to “offer help, advice and incentive for the trade to reduce its carbon footprint.” Now you’re talking!

Having talked this over with my fellow TreeHuggers, I suspect that antiques are still a net positive – but it might make sense to look for antiques that are native to your region, and look to hold on to them for a long time (estate sales are obviously a good place to start!). As my colleague Mike pointed out, it’s hard to imagine that furniture that lasts for 100 years, and may be sold maybe three or four times, has a higher carbon footprint than flatpack mass manufactured stuff that may be trashed in ten years.

Credit: Treehugger

Visit: Ecobcil

Tuvalu may be among those Pacific island nations first affected by climate change, but that hasn’t stopped it from setting a bold new renewable energy target of 100% clean power by 2020. Kickstarting that effort is a (relatively) new solar power system, which supplies 5% of Funafuti’s, the nation’s capital, electricity:

The 40 kilowatt system is installed on the roof of Tuvalu’s largest football stadium, and is the first grid-connected solar power system in the nation. In the first 14 months of its operation the array has replaced the need to import about 4,500 gallons of diesel fuel and reduced the nation’s carbon footprint by 50 tons.

$20 Million Needed to be Carbon Neutral
To reach the nation’s 100% renewable energy goal will require an estimated $20 million — the first $800,000 of which will be spent on a 46 kilowatt solar power system on the Motufoua Secondary School in Vaitupu.

The whole plan has been facilitated through the work of the e8 — a non-profit international organization made up of 10 leading electric companies from the G8 nations — which donated and installed the first solar power array.

Most of the Nation Less Than Three Feet Above Sea Level
To put all of this in perspective, Tuvalu has a population of about 12,000 people (only Vatican City and Nauru have fewer people) and has a total land mass of just 10 square miles in size, spread out over several islands. It’s highest point is a bit under 15′ above sea level, with most of the island being less than 3′ above the rising waters of the Pacific.

So basically, if sea level rise predictions bear out, by the end of the 21st century there’s a strong likelihood that much of the nation will be uninhabitable.

Credit: Treehugger

visit: Ecobcil

Proponents of the mountain top removal (MTR) method of coal mining argue that it is more cost efficient. In 1998, Arch Coal Inc. defended MTR in advertisements, calling it “good for West Virginia, and it’s the right thing to do.” However, opponents of MTR call it destructive.

MTR is a type of coal mining in the Southeast Appalachian Region that uses explosives to blast 800 to 1,000 feet off mountain tops. MTR can strip up to ten square miles, and then dump hundreds of millions of pounds of waste into valley fills. MTR results in tons of rock, dirt, and vegetation being dumped into the surrounding valleys. It also damages aquatic systems, destroys ancient forests, harms water quality, and releases greenhouse gases.

In 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a report about MTR. According to the report, over seven percent of Southeast Appalachian forests were destroyed between 1985 and 2001, and 1,200 streams were either polluted or buried. It was estimated that an area equal in size to one-quarter of New York City was destroyed in Southeast Appalachia.

The EPA report cited the impact MTR had on the environment, including:

• An increase of minerals in the water may increase and negatively impact fish and macro-invertebrates leading to less diverse species
• Forests may become fragmented (broken into sections)
• The regrowth of trees and woody plants on disregraded land may be slowed due to compacted soils
• Free flowing streams at MTR sites are hard to reconstruct.
• Full reforestation of large mine sites may not occur for 100s or years.

The Obama administration’s mixed record on MTR

During President Obama’s campaign he spoke against MTR. Last March, EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson announced the Obama administration was putting a hold on MTR permits until evaluated the environmental impacts. Before the announcement, the EPA announced it sent a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers about the impact of MTR on water.

Last month, the Obama administration released a plan to regulate MTR. The plan aims to provide more regulation and environmental review. However, as the website, SustainableBusiness.com put it, “it is a clear indication that the administration intends to allow the continuation of MTR.”

“So far, the administration’s approach to mountaintop removal coal mining has been a mix of strong words, but weak action,” National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) senior scientist, Dr. Allen Hershkowitz said. “Today’s announcement is more of the same: unspecified references to strengthening permit reviews provides no assurance that the administration will end this abhorrent practice soon.”

Activists arrested while protesting against MTR

On June 23, 30 people were arrested in West Virginia while protesting mountain top removal (MTR) for blocking traffic and obstructing an officer. Among those arrested were NASA climate scientist James Hansen, actress Daryl Hannah, and 94 year-old former U.S. Representative Ken Hechler.

In a statement written after the June 23 arrests, James Hansen said that MTR provides only seven percent of U.S. coal. In the statement, Hansen called for a “moratorium on new coal plants” and for existing plants to be phased out within the next 20 years. The phase out, according to Hansen’s statement, “should start with termination of MTR now.”

Credit: Triplepundit

Visit: Ecobcil

A Delicate Undertaking

I picked up a copy of Time Magazine while visiting my parents and noticed A Delicate Undertaking, an article in their Going Green section comparing different brands of toilet paper with recycled content.

I have been using Seventh Generation 100% recycled toilet paper for years and just don’t get all the hype that “recycled material simply can’t match the comfort U.S. consumers have come to expect.”

My derriere has never felt deprived from its lack of virgin fibers. But I am obviously in the minority.

U.S. desire for a plusher flush

According to Time Magazine, few Americans are using recycled TP. They report: “Toilet paper containing 100% recycled fiber makes up less than 2% of the U.S. market, while sales of three-ply luxury brands like Cottonelle Ultra and Charmin Ultra Soft shot up 40% in 2008. Compare the U.S. desire for an ever plusher flush with the more austere bathroom habits of Europe and Latin America, where recycled TP makes up about 20% of the at-home market. Recycled material simply can’t match the level of comfort that virgin fiber provides — and that U.S. consumers have come to expect.”

Yet, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council: “If every household in the United States replaced just one roll of virgin fiber toilet paper (500 sheets) with 100% recycled ones, we could save 423,900 trees.”

Recomended brands

Greenpeace recently reviewed over 100 brands and only recommends brands that contain 100% overall recycled content, contain at least 50% post-consumer recycled content, and are bleached without toxic chlorine compounds.

Of the four different TP brands reviewed by Time, only two of them, Seventh Generation and Whole Food’s 365, are on Greenpeace’s recommended list.

Room for improvement

Time also reviewed Scott Naturals, which only has 40% recycled content and does not use a less toxic bleaching process. And Marcal’s Small Steps, which is 100% recycled, but contains less than 50% post-consumer material.

I noticed that Kimberly-Clark’s professional line includes SCOTT 100% Recycled Fiber Standard Roll Bath Tissue made with 100% recycled fiber and Green Seal Certified–why can’t they keep to these standards in their retail product line?

Greenpeace Recycled Tissue and Toilet Paper Guide

While Time mentions Greenpeace’s campaign to pressure paper companies to incorporate higher recycled content into their products, they failed to mention Greenpeace’s new Recycled Tissue and Toilet Paper Guide, which includes a nifty iPhone application.

The application makes it super easy to guide your shopping choices next time you shop for TP.

Greenpeace gives the “Recommended” rating to the following brands:

• Green Forest
• Wholefoods 365
• April Soft
• Earth Friendly
• Fiesta
• Fiesta Green
• Natural Value
• Seventh Generation
• Trader Joe’s
• CVS Earth Essentials
• Cascades
• Bright Green

Now there is an easy way to be sure your flushes are as green as possible. Next time you grab a roll of TP, do your small part to help protect the world’s ancient forests.

Credit: Triplepundit

Visit: Ecobcil

We first highlighted the global architectural and design firm HOK with our post last December covering the opening late last year of the new “sustainable” Indianapolis airport (pictured above), for which HOK was principal designer.

Earlier this year we talked with Mary Ann Lazarus, HOK’s Sustainable Design Director, about the growing buzz over building efficiency and the course of sustainable design in a struggling economy.

In its latest issue published just today, Engineering News-Record magazine released a survey ranking HOK, for the second consecutive year, as the greenest design firm in the world.

Green by design

The survey is based on revenue for design services generated in 2008 from projects actively seeking certification from major third-party environmental standards or rating organizations, such as the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED certification program. Last year HOK generated $197.54 million from sustainable projects, 26% of the firm’s total revenue.

In ranking by individual sector, the ENR survey placed HOK first in “Education,” second in the “Commercial Offices” and “Sports, Entertainment & Civic” sectors, and third in “Government Offices.”

As a group, the Top 100 ranked firms generated $2.85 billion in revenue last year from projects registered with, and actively seeking certification from, third-party ratings organizations. Despite a troubled economy, this marked a 63.9% increase over the $1.74 billion in revenue for the group in 2007.

“While the business has shifted dramatically in the past year, sustainable design continues to resonate among clients across all sectors and regions,” says Lazarus. “We are continuing to broaden our expertise to help clients solve their environmental, economic and social challenges through traditional and non-traditional strategies. And through our exclusive alliance with the Biomimicry Guild, we are applying nature’s innovations to the planning and design of buildings, communities and cities worldwide.”

As Lazarus told us last April, HOK is an “early adopter,” incorporating sustainability and efficiency as a core component of the firm’s mission back in 1993. Their design expertise has led to 43 LEED certified projects, six BREEAM rated projects, and more than 100 others actively seeking certification. Through their ongoing work applying sustainable design strategies to emerging geographic locations (HOK has 24 offices worldwide), building types, and sectors, the company continues to play a significant role in making efficient, sustainable design increasingly mainstream. Lazarus, along with her HOK colleagues Sandra Mendler and William Odell, have also authored The HOK Guidebook to Sustainable Design.

Credit: Triplepundit

Visit: Ecobcil

The world is becoming a greener place. I see hybrids on the road more than any other car. Fortune 500 companies are totally rethinking their corporate operations in an attempt to be more sustainable. The movement is spreading! It’s exciting, undeniably. But with the increased awareness come manipulative marketing crusades, questionable motives and high-profile smear campaigns. We all know the dangers of green-washing, but I’m starting to notice an even more manipulative hidden agenda: sustainability “advances” that totally ignore or exclude the human dimension and instead make showy moves in the environmental field. Allow me to explain.

Fast food is right up there with SUVs on my list of unsustainable and unhealthy American habits. In the last year, American obesity rates have risen in 23 states. Two thirds of American adults are either obese or overweight. Childhood obesity rates have grown by 300% in the last thirty years. America is the 9th fattest country in the world. Movies like Supersize Me and Fast Food Nation have done a great job in highlighting the contribution of the fast food industry to our obesity epidemic. Eating fast food and being obese is, literally, unsustainable for human beings.

The weird thing is that fast food restaurants are also starting to “go green.” A Kentucky Fried Chicken/Taco Bell restaurant in Louisville Kentucky (the 7th fattest state in America) just got LEED certification. The restaurant is naturally lit, and it harvests rainwater for irrigation. The frame of the building is made from sustainably-harvested wood. Yum! Brands, Inc., the parent company of KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and Long John Silver’s is the largest real estate developer in the world. It owns 36,000 restaurants internationally. One down and 35,999 to go!

McDonald’s, never one to miss an emerging trend, just opened their third “green” restaurant in Cary, North Carolina. The restaurant was actually a retrofit project, with 99 percent of the original structure being recycled or reused for the new building. The restaurant will be 40 percent more energy-efficient than the previous version, and will save half a million gallons of water a year. Once the restaurant opens for business, they will seek LEED certification as well. Three down and 30,097 to go!

To me, the concept of “greening” the fast food industry is a bit ridiculous; no matter how many restaurants get retrofitted or how many square feet of living roof space get added. Even if the restaurant itself is a triumph of green building and clean tech, even if the building is net-zero, even if it adds energy back into the grid; doesn’t it still market and sell horrendously unhealthy food? Food that is engineered to be addictive? This trend is missing the forest for the (sustainably grown) trees.

As the sustainability movement gains momentum, I see a pattern emerging. A business will announce grand plans to increase efficiency, reduce emissions and/or save the planet. But the humans involved are completely forgotten. Systems thinking comes into play here, begging the question: does the green McDonald’s also serve fresh and local produce, free range chicken and fair trade coffee? Are they investing in the health and wellbeing of the customer, i.e. their most important stakeholder group? Or is the LEED certification simply a marketing ploy meant to convince us that they care about sustainability?

Credit: Triplepundit

Visit: Ecobcil
]]> http://ecobcil.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/greening-the-fast-food-industry/feed/ 0 ecobcil