How to simultaneously solve the economic and energy crisis

“When energy revolutions converge with communication revolutions, those are the pivotal points in human history.”

Economist Jeremy Rifkin has a plan to simultaneously solve the economic and energy crisis, and all it involves is for all of humanity to produce their own power rather than relying on large-scale central power generators.

It’s not a new idea, but the scale on which he is proposing it is big.  Small-scale power generation built into every building: “solar panels and small vertical wind turbines on roofs, heat pumps harvesting geothermal energy in basements.”

“Your building becomes your power plant, just like your computer becomes your information vehicle to the world. Every home, factory, industrial park, every building is converted.”

With a smart-grid system, energy becomes a p2p system.  Like the internet, it becomes an intergrid.  It could become a new economic paradigm that Rifkin calls “distributed capitalism.”

What do you think?

Is the Earth’s 6th Great Mass Extinction In Progress?

I found this article a couple weeks ago, and I thought I’d share it with you guys.  I thought it was a pretty powerful article and is definitely worth reading.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/05/the-earths-6th.html

I think this article brings up an important issue that is often overlooked when we are considering sustainability.  There is so much emphasis placed on greenhouse gas emissions and resource consumption, we lose sight of the effect our current consumption is having on the animals on our planet.  Researchers believe 30,000 species are becoming extinct every year because of the impact humans are having on our world.  At this rate over half the species living on the planet will be extinct by the end of this century.  Clearly we need to pay attention to this issue and react quickly.

Humans are the only species on earth that has changed the global ecosystem.  When we abandoned hunting and gathering in favor of agriculture, we set the events in motion that will eventually lead to the next great mass extinction.  The other 5 major die-offs were caused by natural disasters like asteroids or volcanoes, but the human caused event is obviously completely different.  Unfortunately, this means we don’t have a previous extinction to study.  We need to make our judgments based on what’s happening now.

The article highlights a few things we need to do to save the animals, but focuses mostly on border fences.  The simple act of erecting a wall to stop people from moving between countries separates from their feeding grounds, leading to starvation and population decay.  We need to find a solution to dividing lands without endangering the animals along the border.  This isn’t something that’s happening in a third world country, this is happening on the border between the United States and Mexico.

The article is very specific about the dire consequences humans are having on our world, but it is very vague when it comes to solving these problems.  As engineers, we are responsible for developing solutions to these issues so we can live on Earth without causing the next mass extinction.  This isn’t a problem that’s confined to the animals either; eventually, we will feel the effects of the die-off first hand, in our lifetimes.

Too Much Too Soon

A recent article in the San Jose Mercury titled “Debate over global warming plan heats up Berkeley” alerted me to a very important design criteria for my group’s DP2 solution.  Moreover, the articles insights offer warnings to the general population of sustainability-minded people, brining to our attention a human characteristic that, if unheeded (like in te unfortuante case of Berkeley), can bring even the most well-intentioned efforts to a halt.

What happened in Berkeley–or, more precisely, what failed to happen in Berkeley–was a city-wide energy audit of all homes, which would have identified unsustainable aspects of each house so that homeowners could correct their wasteful habits or designs.

The end goal was a noble one–to reduce the city of Berkeley’s greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, which is the most aggressive such plan for a city in the U.S. today.  Unfortunately, citizens balked after learning recently (after the plan ws being finalized) that the sustainability improvements and redesigns were not only mandatory, but at the homeowner’s expense.  Estiamtes of the cost of these repairs ran as high as $30,000, which was enough to spark sufficient uproar for Berkeley to cancel their original plans.

As it stands now, the greenhouse-emissions audit’s suggested improvements and corrections will now be voluntary.  And while this is a drastic reimplementation of the original idea, city officials are still optimistic that people will take the necessary (and costly) steps to reduce their emissions.  The officer in charge of the program was quoted at saying that the revised plan still “provides a solid direction for where we need to go, [and will] ‘give the city and homeowners tools they need to make these large (energy) reductions.”

- – - – - -

Personally, I do hope that he’s right.  What worries me, though, is the age-old example of the Tragedy of the Commons, where even intelligent, conscientious individuals end up ruining their local environment out of a simple lack of restraint.  I just got out of a Military Strategy lecture wherin the guest speaker testified to great length about how history appears to prove again and again that human nature is immutable, regardless of how hard we try to educate ourselves and reform our morals.

Granted, the coming intensification of environmental issues poses a predicament unlike any we’ve yet faced, so hopefully, humanity can be spurred to surpass our negative predispositions and take the right course of action.

Nevertheless, this recent situation in Berkeley worries me.

-Dan Lopez

A Degree in Biomimicry (reading response)

Sometimes I feel out of place in ME222.  I’m not an engineer or a product designer.  I’m an Earth Systems…scientist? designer? thinker?  I don’t know exactly what it is that I am.  I don’t know where I fit in here.  Then I read this chapter of Janine Benyus’s book, and I felt like I belonged — like I might be useful afterall.  Apparently they need people with knowledge of th Earth and its organisms.

Benyus talks about biomimicry: innovation inspired by nature.  Biomimics are a goup of people who are trying to learn things from nature and apply them to the anthrosphere.  How does one become a biomimic?  Apparently it’s not that hard — there’s a 2-year certificate program.  Operated by the Biomimicry Institute and the Biomimicry Guild, this two-year certificate program in biomimicry is  the only formal program in biomimicry offered anywhere in the world.  Designed to be equivalent to a Master’s program, it involves independent study, virtual group interactions, five 1-week long on-site sessions.

I’m a bit skeptical of their statement that it is as rigorous as a Master’s program, since they plan on participants spending just 2-3 hours per week on the program.  Imagine spending just 2-3 hours per week on a Stanford Master’s degree…

There might be better ways to learn about biomimicry: the biomimicry institute has a listing of universities that offer biomimetic education opportunities. They list Stanford’s Bio X program, saying “The Stanford University Bio-X program supports, organizes, and facilitates interdisciplinary research connected to biology and medicine. The program operates across the Schools of Humanities and Sciences, Engineering, Medicine, Earth Sciences and the School of Law. Contact: Heideh Fattaey, Director of Bio-X Programs & Operations.”

Maybe we should all take some Bio-X classes next year to broaden our sustainable design skills.

What is Sustainability Really About?

I think Weston posted a really interesting point of view about sustainable design for the developing world, and how much of it fails to get off the ground because of what it says about the “bottom 3 billion,” and I tend to agree that that paradgim should be shifted.  I want to expand on the issue to ask another question: is sustainability a form of philanthropy?

Philanthropy can generally be defined as benevolent actions that people do for other people.  By asking if sustainability falls under that category, what I’m really asking is what is sustainability really about?  Is it really about the earth or is it about us?

One way to look at it is that sustainability is about self-preservation  - enabling human life to continue as it has as much as possible.  To be more precise, it’s about preserving the things that allow our lives to be the way they are.  This is especially interesting because as we all know, in order to allow life to continue as it has through sustainability, we simply must change.  And though the changes are relatively small now, to truly solve all of the environmental problems humans have caused, the changes will have to be much larger.  So it seems that self-preservation is all about change and adaptability.

This also raises the question that if change is the only constant, why are we as humans so averse to it?  Why does it seem so difficult to adapt (in our context, to be sustainable) when in fact it’s all we’ve ever done?

Metal Recycling

It seems that even the jewelry industry is learning about sustainability, and not too soon. According to the New York Times, 30 tons of waste rock is generated to mine ONE ounce of gold, which is the average amount of gold in one wedding band. I found this great video about recycling electronics, specifically computers, for precious metals. The narrator’s voice is perhaps too “profound”, but the video clearly demonstrates the various processes it takes to recycle the metal. I have yet to find what the environmental impact of these processes is, but I’m willing to bet that it’s less than 30 tons of waste rock contaminated with toxins.

Video.
Also, check out these photos for Jewelry Cycle, a show that was at San Francisco’s Museum of Craft and Design earlier this year. The artists who contributed to the show were trying to raise awareness about the importance of using recycled metals for jewelry, and the importance of recycling old circuit boards.

Saving Paper!!!

After our online vs. paper bill conversation on Monday, I thought more about paper usage in big companies.  I work in the financial department in the Athletic department, and my biggest complaint is how much paper they waste.  I would guess each person wastes about 2 pounds of paper each day.  Even though most of the paper is now recycled, I feel like they need to reduce their paper usage at the source.  I have brainstormed some pretty easy ways to do this:
1.    Using a single space format for the text of final reports
2.    Printing only the amount needed.  One way to do this would be to print one copy of a report for several people to share rather than a copy for everyone.
3.    Storing information on flash drives instead of printing paper copies.
4.    Minimizing the use of colored, glossy and special papers that are difficult to recycle.
5.    Using reusable or two-way envelopes to mail letters
I think these 5 things would really help Stanford cut down on its paper waste. I’m going to try and get everyone in the department to jump on board so we can not only save paper, but also trees, landfill space, oil, and air and water pollution from paper manufacturing.

San Francisco is the BOSS of recycling

According to a report from cleantechnica.com, San Francisco actually does hold up to it’s reputation as being a city that recycles.  The article states that San Francisco prevents 72% of discards from entering the landfill.  In other words, San Francisco recycles 72% of the material that ends up in the trash can.  Pretty darn good.  That figure is up 2% from last year.   Their midway goal is to reach 75% recycling by 2010, and the final goal is to reach zero-waste by 2020.  That is quite an ambitious plan for San Francisco, but it’s wonderful to see someone actually doing it.

I wonder what the recycling percentages are in other major cities like New York, Atlanta, or Los Angeles.

The article was written by Gavin Newsom, who is the mayor of San Francisco.

To see the article, here is the link….

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/05/12/recycling-our-way-to-a-more-sustainable-future/

~Ben Duncan

Smart Grids

Since multiple groups are working on ways to lower energy usage from thermostats, I was reminded of an article I read last month in the New York Times on early volunteers in a “smart grid” technology.

The “smart grid” is described as being a “suite of technologies intended to even out demand for electricity, cut expenses and make the electric system more stable.” In an experiment in Illinois, volunteers for the program can watch a web page that provides the estimated price for electricity at a current time allowing people to judge how much energy they would like to use at a given time. This allows operators to choose to raise/lower their electricity usage to even out the price and thus evening out the distribution of electricity at any given time. I never really considered how volatile the energy industry is as price fluctuations can be extreme due to both supply and demand. Alternative energy generators such as wind and solar aren’t predictable and energy supply can skyrocket when wind is present at a turbine farm creating the need to divert energy. Similarly, at times of low demand (mild weather), some plants do not want to shut off.

Similarly in Boulder, Colorado, Xcel Energy has begun installing smart meters in throughout the city. These smart meters which display the amount of electricity used each 15-minute period and can send a weekly email detailing energy usage for the week. This program is more conventional, geared to reduce amount of electricity used in the city as a whole. Overall, I think this is simply another example of how designs for the smart meters must be location specific when addressing users. Where an user lives and how the energy is provided to that area definitely changes how the infrastructure must be set up. However, in the mild weathered bay area, we could definitely benefit from energy monitoring.

Bixi’s Inaugeration

Yesterday, Montreal inaugerated North America’s first large scale bike sharing program, Bixi. The program was lauded to be one of the best inventions of 2008 in Time magazine. Unlike many other programs, Bixi is operated by the city itself rather than an outside vendor. What I appreciate about the program is the attention to detail in its implementation from the design of the bikes to how stations were created (in order to store them during the ridiculously cold winters there). It will be interesting to see the outcomes of Bixi – if it can be successful self-sustaining program.