Eco-Technology Trends

Solar Energy And Government Policy

2009-05-12T08:38:00.000-07:00

Although market forces and increasing environmental awareness are slowly helping solar power to gain traction, there can be little doubt that government attitudes towards solar power have by far the greatest impact in bringing about more widespread adoption.

Useful indicators of official support include factors such as evidence of shifts in employment practices, for example green electrician training to provide skills required to install and maintain solar and wind power plants.

In countries whose governments have either ignored solar power or been outright hostile (often an indication of pressure from vested interests such as utility companies or fuel suppliers) then adoption of solar power has been distinctly sluggish. Compare this however with countries where government policy has been favourably disposed to renewable energy solutions (Germany, India and Japan for example) and the difference is striking.

The German Renewable Energy Sources Act forced power utilities to pay for all excess energy fed back to the electricity grid from solar energy systems at a rate somewhat above the standard market price and fixed for twenty years. Understandably there has been a massive rise in solar power installations in Germany, with the existing utility giants prevented by law from strangling this at birth by the usual tactic of undercutting the rate paid for surplus electricity.

As a result, Germany now meets 15% of its total energy needs using renewable technologies. However the power companies are fighting back; they initially sought to recoup their lost profits by hiking the price of energy charged to their customers, then brazenly lobbied the government with the argument that people and businesses who had installed solar panels were making the price of electricity too expensive for their other customers.

This is clearly disingenuous; the real issue is decentralization and loss of control - if every home provided for its own energy needs then those who run these powerful utility companies would be out on their ear. It's a short sighted attitude and one that compares very poorly with the stance taken by the lighting industry.

Faced with the imminent demise of a business model predicated on repeat sales of a cheap, short-lived product (the electric light bulb), the lighting industry is embracing a new future based on LED light bulbs that are both expensive and last, if not quite forever, an awfully long time.

Ironically, assuming the German government refuses to yield to the power companies, the more they play out their self-interested tactic of raising prices to recover profits (and bonuses) the more people will desert them, especially as it becomes ever more viable to install home solar panels.

A classic example of how clinging to the past so often sabotages the future. Anyone who presently has or is considering an oil career needs to take a long hard look at how oil might fit in to this future and act accordingly because sticking your head in the sand a) exposes your ass and b) is hardly a good look.

Going Off Grid

2009-03-10T04:20:00.000-07:00

As I mentioned recently in Goodbye Grid it would seem that events are conspiring to favour efforts to increase Off Grid living as at least a supplemental, if not yet a replacement, means of power generation. I see no reason to rehearse those arguments again or to hammer home the benefits of an off-grid approach to providing domestic power.

The lines between politics and morality have always been fuzzy and getting into issues such as decentralisation, individual ownership of power production, and the true impact of scaling up to mass off-grid living would take forever (and likely with no clear consensus emerging either).

However, it is abundantly clear that doing nothing, maintaining the status quo, carrying on regardless and business as usual are totally unviable options. The oil physically doesn't exist to continue supporting our "habit" much longer, and even if it did the likelihood that the planet will sooner rather than later turn on us is a real and growing threat.

So what is to be done? Well there is always the option to wait for the powers that be to tell us; though their past record on this score isn't exactly encouraging. Personally I have long harboured a suspicion that in fact it is our masters who wait to see what appears popular before adopting that as their policy - in other words, we collectively direct them and not the other way round as they would prefer it to appear.

That being the case, perhaps the thing to do then is actually set about moving off-grid. There's no reason to suddenly and massively change the way you go about your life; I would caution against the "big bang" approach anyway since shifting off-grid involves learning new attitudes and new technologies, not to mention a certain amount of upfront financial investment.

So do your research and learn how to live off grid then select an area you feel comfortable about changing and work on that. Start real small, maybe something cheap and easy to play with like solar shed lights so you can begin to understand how the technology works, the advantages and disadvantages, develop a feel for how you might scale up to bigger things. Switch to low energy lighting using LED lights which is a straightforward matter of changing light bulbs.

The popular conception of off grid living as some whacky alternative that requires participants to injest inhuman quantities of muesli flavored tofu is fast becoming as dated as the petrol engine. In the current climate (pun intended), adopting homemade energy solutions as a means of moving towards going off grid is one of the few real options available.

Garden Lights and Wood Burners (again)

2009-03-04T11:11:00.000-08:00

Apropos nothing in particular I thought I would give a gratuitous mention to Hermione, hot on the trail of her latest garden light. It's ok - I won't let on just how many illuminated garden follies she already has planted around the garden; let's just say this won't be a first offence. It will probably look quite nice in the "oriental" section (the area with the solid rock water feature and LED dragonfly lights).

Anyway, whilst I've got this page in front of me and because it's been a while, I'll also put in another mention for wood burning stoves, the whole topic of which first drifted across my radar a couple of months back. This excellent article examines five main issues to consider when installing a wood burner.

It kinda knocks the romantic sheen off the whole idea a bit when you get to understand that wood boilers and the like need a bit of manual labor in order to maintain that "good life" image. Also, don't forget to check that you can actually get access to wood and store it someplace. I can just see some muppet installing one of these in a one room sixth floor apartment in the middle of some sprawling metropolis miles from the nearest twig.

But if it is a viable option and you're prepared to trade a modicum of effort to reap the payback, then I'd say go for it. Let's face it - a wood burner may be impractical in a big city, but then piped gas isn't always so easy to come by in the rest of the world; and there's a whole lot more "rest of the world" than there is "city".

Going Green without Green Spaces

2009-02-13T03:16:00.000-08:00

Some of the most popular and enduring (mis)conceptions regarding "green" technologies are the result of the media's incorrigible addiction to hype and entertainment. Images of someone installing low energy lighting or shopping online are nowhere near as distracting as some borderline barking mad hippy showing off his solar powered tepee surrounded by several acres of home grown organic food and an equally vast underground heat exchanger, not to mention the natural reed bed sewage system. Oh, and did I mention the banks of solar panels mounted on an automatic tracking device constructed from recycled car tyres?

No wonder most "normal" folk switch off and conclude that none of this is for them. Which is a shame, because contrary to popular opinion it is not necessary to own half of Kansas in order to make use of green technologies. And whilst we're at it, can we also drop the "alternative" label with its overtones of half-assed and inconvenient?

Many modern eco-tech devices are as cutting edge and efficient as any mainstream rival, if not more so in some cases, and will quite often save more money than their conventional counterparts as well as going easy on the environment. LED lighting anyone? Looks fabulous, uses a small fraction of the energy that conventional light bulbs consume, and actually saves a great deal of money on account of being so much cheaper to run.

And the point I am finally getting around to is this: you don't actually need wide open green spaces in order to practice green living. Much of the energy waste in the world today is accounted for by inefficient appliances and travel, both of which can be addressed without access to so much as a window box.

But why cut down on energy consumption and travel anyway? Simple really; the less energy we consume (and moving people and products around also wastes epic amounts of energy) the less we plunder our planet's resources and the less we pay it back in pollution (think principally carbon dioxide, but every other waste counts too). And why should we want to do that? Again, it's a no-brainer; we live on this planet, if we screw it up we have no place else to go.

We tend to use energy for heating, lighting, running domestic appliances and getting around. Each of these can be reduced by anyone - even if they live in a city apartment. The need for heating (and cooling) can be massively reduced by the simple expedient of installing modern insulation products. That's it - one off investment and endless payback. Lighting is similarly straightforward - invest in high quality LED lighting (which will cost a bit, but not as much as you would otherwise have paid in electricity bills over the next year or two). That's that done - sit back, admire the pretty lights and feel suitably smug.

Most domestic appliances can be replaced by more efficient versions, sometimes also giving a surprisingly quick return on investment. Have you any idea how bad most conventional electrical kettles are? Still got any CRT monitors or TVs? How about that old dishwasher or washing machine? You get the idea. The cost of replacing some of this stuff can look somewhat daunting until you calculate the savings to be gained by doing so.

Reducing travel is also rather easier to affect than many might suppose. Obviously if it's possible to work from home via a computer then use the opportunity to do so occasionally. But you can also influence how much travelling others do. If you buy groceries and other goods online then you save your own personal transport costs (which can mount up), but more importantly, the more people who do the same, the less overall traffic (and fuel consumption) there is. A single delivery van can deliver stuff to dozens of households vastly more efficiently and cost effectively than having every householder go out shopping.

Another way to affect travel costs is to identify where products are sourced. Why buy apples from a different continent when there are commercial orchards in your own locality? Force suppliers to cut down on the insanity of shipping stuff around the globe by buying whatever alternatives are located closest. An even better solution where food is concerned is of course to grow your own.

Admittedly, if you live in an apartment then the harvest from your window box isn't going to exactly see you thru the winter. But if you even a small garden or allotment then it's astounding how much food you can in fact grow yourself. Saving you much money, hopefully getting some exercise and enjoyment out of the process and providing another small sanctuary for the many other creatures that live alongside us.

If you do go down the grow-your-own route but don't have a large garden then you are going to need one of these: an urban compost tumbler to a) provide a steady supply of replenishment for the nutrients in the soil and b) to get rid of the huge and endless supply of plant waste you will accumulate (not every part of a plant is necessarily edible - grow a courgette if you need to have the importance of a composter spelt out to you).

Low Energy Lighting vs Cheap Electricity

2009-02-05T09:52:00.001-08:00

How and where to find cheap electricity? That's a pressing issue these days and one that's unlikely to find an answer in our dwindling reserves of fossil fuels. So what about alternative energy sources? To which the answer has to be: what alternative energy sources?

The depressing truth is that just as oil hasn't disappeared quite yet, neither have alternative energy sources really clambered onto the stage, let alone made it to centre-stage. Sure we have solar power, wind power, tidal, thermal and nuclear power even, not to mention bio-fuel and hydrogen. Only none of these yet have supply, consumer take-up or infrastructure that even begins to approach the still dominant hydrocarbon energy sources: oil, coal and gas.

Cheap, renewable electricity? Coming to an electrical outlet near you no time soon. And yet... there is a perfectly viable way to simulate cheap electricity. Which is to use a whole lot less.

Simple maths really; if electricity costs say 10 cents per kilowatt hour and a 100w bulb lasts 2,000 hours then that one bulb will cost $20 to provide lighting over that time (about one year typically). If electricity costs 5 cents per kWh instead then the cost of the lighting you can extract from that one bulb drops to $10.

But what about using less electricity? Well obviously you don't want to compromise by having the lights on only half as long or dropping to a rather dim 50w bulb. Well you don't have to; cheap electricity is, it seems, relatively easy to find. The simple expedient of switching to low energy lighting twists the maths back in your favour.

For example, the Cree based EXERGI LED or an actual Cree LED (the Evolux series) and other manufacturer's LED replacement spotlights now boast power levels above 100 lumens per watt. To put that in context, the Cree Evolux delivers over 1,000 lumens which competes head on with our 100w normal incandescent bulb but uses a 13w LED chip. Oh and did I mention that it lasts over 50,000 hours? But for the purposes of comparison let's see how it stacks up over the rather lacklustre 2000 hour lifespan of the incandescent light bulb.

And the answer is: $2.60. Cheap??? Compared to a start point $20 that's outstanding; nearly 90% less electricity for the same amount of lighting. And get this; you can do this right now. The technology for delivering sustainable cheap electricity might still be out over the horizon, but the technology for using the electricity we have right now more cheaply is available, well, right now. Cheaper Electricity - who needs it.

Goodbye Grid

2009-01-19T10:07:00.000-08:00

Before we get very much further into the 21st Century we are almost certain to see the emergence of what I believe will seem from the perspective of history to be a defining trend. What I am referring to here is what is collectively known as off grid living and no, I'm not talking about muddle-headed hippy "alternative" lifestyles either.

I think we were heading down this path inevitably anyway, driven by the twin imperatives of dwindling oil reserves and looming climate change, but the abrupt financial crisis that occurred on the cusp of 2008/2009 has likely accelerated that process by so profoundly shaking up the prevailing order and conventional wisdom.

When things get as messed up as they have been of late people are often quite prepared to think, and do, the previously unthinkable. Right now there exists a fertile ground composed of many, if not most, folk searching for a new order, a better way, a means to patch up the past and mend the future. Hitch this to the extraordinary coincidence of the inauguration of arguably the most charismatic, visionary and intelligent US President since Roosevelt held office against the backdrop of the Great Depression and WWII, and conditions for rapid and far-reaching change could hardly be more favourable.

A central point about being off-grid is that it is not simply an ecological statement. It has massive economic and political implications also. It implies self-reliance and reduced dependence on big business, which in turn weakens political control - relationships between a few large energy giants and governments are much easier to maintain than attempting to control a sprawling mass of individuals each with their own collection of assorted solar powered products and each with their own personal and possibly contradictory set of agendas.

It will be interesting to see how President Obama uses this opportunity to spend government money on an epic scale that the financial meltdown has handed him. The US automobile industry could serve as a clue; for decades this schlerotic manufacturing sector has done pretty much all it could to ignore the winds of change howling outside its door. Now that the door, roof and half the walls have blown away, propping this industry up so that it might resume business as usual would be akin to buying a drunk another drink to replace the one that got spilled.

My guess is that with the old guard for the moment caught off guard and unable to mount its customary obstruction to anything that might upset their privileged position we may well see the kind of seismic shift that eventually attracts a handy historical label (think Industrial Revolution, Age of Mass Communication, Renaissance, you get the picture). Aside from anything else, how exactly can anyone stop people in their billions deciding to vote with their wallets and install indoor solar lights in preference to paying the utility companies any more money?

Wood Burning Stove Saves Planet?

2008-12-16T09:18:00.000-08:00

Here's something that caught my attention the other day, not least because of the apparently incongruous application of an old-tech solution to a very modern eco-tech problem. What I'm talking about is the growing popularity of installing wood burning stoves as a low-cost, comparatively environmentally friendly alternative to conventional fossil fuel based heating systems.

Yep. A big old lump of cast iron which you throw logs into and then set fire to them. By all accounts they are surprisingly efficient these days and you need rather fewer hunks of tree than I had realised in order to heat your home, provide hot water and even do your cooking. Take about an all in one solution!

But the real eye opener for me was that burning trees is a) cost effective and b) ecologically sound. Trees (obviously on reflection) are renewable - for each tree you cut down another can be planted to take its place, and this can continue for millenia, as indeed it has done. Constantly recyling carbon from the atmosphere into the tree and back into the atmosphere again, totally unlike fossil fuel. In fact the whole idea is being tried on quite a large scale with biomass power plants that burn renewable and recyled fuel products.

I find this proposition fascinating because of the implications it suggests and because it is such a low-tech application compared to say solar power or nuclear power or hydrogen fuel cells or any other modern energy technology. One to keep an eye on in the days ahead. In the meantime this was something else I hadn't considered - installing an outdoor wood burning stove for those who can't or don't want to modify their house too much.

Eco and Technology?

2008-12-12T10:47:00.000-08:00

Eco and Technology? Well, why not. Technology is just a means of applying human ingenuity to the business of solving a problem, and the environment is arguably the biggest problem facing human civilization today.

So forget the tree-hugging, muesli-munching, unwashed hippy eco-warrior stereotype of yesteryear. I'm about as hard-headed, right-wing, capitalist and self-interested as they come and that's also why I care passionately about the world I live in.

There ain't no point getting rich in a ruined world - you'll still have to fill your lungs with the same polluted air as everyone else. You cannot buy yourself a different planet to that on which everyone else lives. If the climate goes to hell in a handcart then it takes everyone with it - no exceptions.

Similarly, I can think of not one single case where a person of great wealth or power amassed sufficient to cheat the grim reaper. In the end it all counts for nothing except what we leave to our children and their children to follow. They are our only shot at immortality, so it is in our own best interests to leave things, if not exactly as we found them, at least in better shape than we might otherwise be in danger of doing.

So that's the eco side of things, but where does technology, the root of all modern ills, fit in? After all it was technology that screwed things up (do I hear "internal combustion engine" from anyone?) so frankly who needs it? But the hard fact is that waving a joss stick and wailing about evil globalized corporate imperialists ain't gonna fix nothing. It's up to individuals to look out for themselves and in so doing look out for the planet.

Even taking a small simple step like installing a DIY Windpower system helps; in the first instance it directly benefits you, but as more people follow suit then real lasting change really is possible. Also, just as there is a popular misapprehension that solar panels require direct sunlight, which they do not (bright "daylight" will suffice), there is a similar misguided belief that wind power electricity depends on the prevalence of hurricane force winds. In fact, even a slight breeze will turn the turbine blades.

Technology is pretty much our only hope to avoid leaving a legacy of desolation and becoming a permanent disappointment to those who will come after us. Technology is in one sense like a gun - it has no moral dimension, it is simply a tool and the effect it has depends upon whose hands it is in and where they point it. Technology is not responsible for plundering the earth's natural resources and dumping the residue into the sky as a blanket of CO2. It might have been applied to that task, but it was us, humans, who bear the responsibility.

There is no reason whatever why we should not redivert our undoubted ingenuity and perseverance at sources of energy that cause little or no harm to the place we call home. Anything we dig out of the ground and burn, be it coal, oil or uranium for nuclear power plants, is gone for good. When no more can be found and dug up that's it, game over. But all the while the winds swirl around the world and a great big yellow ball hangs in the sky, daily radiating more energy than we ever begin to use.

If only we could develop effective technology to use it, eh? And what might that be called I wonder? Eco Technology perhaps?