MIT believes that its thermoelectric technology will be able to reach 90 percent of the Carnot Limit.

Theory says that conversion of heat into electricity can never exceed a specific value called the Carnot Limit, based on a 19th-century formula for determining the maximum efficiency that any device can achieve in converting heat into work.

Current thermoelectric technology has only reached 10 percent of the Carnot Limit, but Peter Hagelstein, associate professor of electrical engineering, Yan Kucherov, a consultant for the Naval Research Laboratory, and coworkers have used thermal diode technology to reach 40 percent of the Carnot limit.  The teams calculations show that 90 percent of the Carnot Limit is possible with this new technology.

The teams research used a “a single quantum-dot device — a type of semiconductor in which the electrons and holes, which carry the electrical charges in the device, are very tightly confined in all three dimensions.”  Normally, there is a tradeoff that has to be made by the current technology.  “With present systems it’s possible to efficiently convert heat into electricity, but with very little power. It’s also possible to get plenty of electrical power — what is known as high-throughput power — from a less efficient, and therefore larger and more expensive system.”  The new technology used by MIT should allow efficient conversion of heat into electricity with high throughput power.  In other words, a smaller less expensive system can accomplish the efficient  conversion of heat into plenty of electrical power.  Small, efficient, and inexpensive mean that this technology should have a better chance of being a commercial success than current technologies are.

The new technology depends on quantum dot devices, a specialized kind of chip in which charged particles are very narrowly confined to a very small region. Such devices are under development, but still a few years away from commercial availability.

In other words, this technology although promising won’t be available for some years to come.  However a company called MTPV Corporation, one of the funding sources for MIT’s research, has similar technology for photovoltaic devices that should be available sooner.

The Reuse-A-Shoe program was begun in 1990 as the brain child of Nike employee Steve Potter.  He envisioned shredding old Nikes into reusable materials.  Since that time 24,546,914 pairs of old tennis shoes have been collected.

Just about every state in the US has drop-off locations where you can take up to 10 pairs of shoes.  In Europe, the UK and Germany have drop-off locations as do Australia and New Zealand down under.  There are two facilities that actually recycle the shoes and those are located in the state of Oregon and in the country of Belgium.

Once collected, shoes sent to the Oregon facility are split into three main parts:” the rubber outsole, foam midsole, and fabric upper”.  The three separate parts are “fed through grinders and purified”.  The resulting material is called Nike Grind – Nike Grind Rubber, Nike Grind Foam, and Nike Grind Fiber.

At the Belgium facility the shoes are ground up as a whole.  Once ground, the resulting mix is sent through a number of separators.  Regardless of which method is used, the final grinds are then used in a variety of  ways to create or refurbish athletic facilities.

Each type of Nike Grind can be used to create athletic surfaces.  Nike Grind Rubber is perfect for “use in track surfaces, interlocking gym flooring tiles, and playground surfaces.”  The rubber grind can also be used for the soles of other Nike shoes.

Nike Grind Foam is used for cushioning outdoor basketball and tennis courts.  This grind is also used for futsal (five a side soccer) indoor fields.  The final substance Nike Grind Fiber is used for making pads for cushioning “indoor synthetic courts and wood courts.”

Finding a drop-off center is fairly easy.  Just go here, choose your country and state and then locate the closest drop-off point.  Recycling those old athletic shoes will finally get them out of the house while making you feel good about getting rid of them.

The SHELF is a concept that was submitted as a Green Life entry at Design Boom.  It is actually a rear spoiler or wing, that houses a folded solar panel.  That solar panel can be electronically unfolded to cover the car from the spoiler to the hood.  The solar panel not only allows recharging of some of the cars electric systems but also blocks sunlight from the front and rear keeping the air cooler on the inside.  Even though one of the systems that the SHELF is supposed to energize is the air conditioner, less power is needed because of the shielding.

Other hybrid and electric cars have incorporated solar cells in their roofs to recharge limited systems similar to the SHELF.  However those solar panels don’t have the surface area nor the solar shielding of the SHELF.   The spoiler could be added to any car presumably through a manufacturer.  Unlike other solar roof concepts, the SHELF would only be used when parked.  Built in solar roofs can continuously collect power even when the car is in motion.  A four hour trip on a sunny day would still provide solar energy in say in the 2010 Prius with a solar roof as opposed to the folded SHELF.

Since this is currently in the design phase, it won’t be available anytime soon.  However, car manufacturers may decide that they like the idea and may incorporate the SHELF in future automobiles to provide renewable energy for electrical systems.  Only time will tell if the SHELF is a viable commercial concept or not.

Our CFL discount program is helping Virginians reduce the amount of energy they use, thereby saving money and helping the environment," said Paul D. Koonce, chief executive officer of Dominion Virginia Power. "It is an effective, easy way to practice energy conservation.

Dominion Virginia Power is offering the instant discount program as an incentive to its customers to promote CFL usage.  As such, the program has discounted individual CFL bulbs by $1.50 and packs of three CFLs by $3.00.  The discount program is offered through Home Depot stores in the DVP area.  Rather than issuing coupons either online or through the mail, the discounts are already reflected in the shelf price of the bulbs at participating Home Depot stores.  The program was begun in October of 2007 and is set to end December 31, 2009 but the power company expects it to be resurrected in 2010 because it is working so well.

About 3.8 million bulbs have been purchased through the program.  The energy savings from those bulbs is estimated to be one billion kilowatt hours.  Customers of DVP should save “$150 million in energy costs over the life of the bulbs”.  The 3.8 million bulbs purchased will the equivalent effect of:

• 149,037
  cars off the road for one year
• 854,725 ton C02
  life cycle air pollution reduction
• 1,113,648,413 kWh
  life cycle energy savings
• $160,006,033
  life cycle savings

Along with the CFL discount program partnership with DVP, Home Depot also provides CFL recycling nationwide.  Any unbroken CFLs that have run out of juice can be handed to the person behind the “Returns” counter.

Compared to other frequently mentioned methods, replacing incandescent bulbs with CFLs is one of the cheapest ways of cutting down on energy consumption.  Whether you live in Virginia or not, incorporating CFLs into your energy conservation and cost savings plans is well worth it.

According to statistics provided by Knowaste, one baby can “create 6000 disposable diapers by the time he/she is potty trained”.  That is just one baby.  That doesn’t include the other sources of diaper waste such as adults with incontinence problems.  According to the  Gilbert Guide, adult diapers now make up seven percent of landfill waste outstripping the two to three percent from baby diapers.  Although diapers these days are advertised as being “biodegradable”, it can take them up to 500 years to finally decompose.

Clearly, recycling diapers is a good way to cut down on  almost ten percent of landfill waste.  Using Knowaste’s method, 98 percent of the content of disposable diapers can be kept out of the waste stream.  “For every tonne of diaper waste recycled, 400kg of wood, 145 cubic metres of natural gas and 8,700 cubic metres of water is saved.”

The modern disposable diaper consists of three components: mixed plastic, wood pulp and super absorbent gel polymers. Mixed plastic makes up the diaper’s inner and outer layers. Wood pulp, inside the diaper, cushions and wicks moisture away from the skin and towards the diaper’s inner core. Super absorbent polymers, gel-like capsules, are located in the inner core, swelling and absorbing moisture. All these individual components of a disposable diaper can and should be recycled, effectively preventing an endless stream of negative environmental impacts associated with the disposal of diapers.

Knowaste already has diaper recycling facilities in Canada, Germany and the Netherlands. 

Knowaste uses what it calls “three key stages” which include acquisition of the diapers, cleaning and separation of the diaper components and then using the reclaimed materials for green energy or to create recycled products like “plastic wood, roof shingles and vinyl wood sidings. The fibre and super absorbent polymers can make biogas or green energy”. 

The “three key stages” can be  broken down into six steps.  First step, shred the diapers.  Second step, materials are washed and chemically treated.  Third step, plastic is compressed into pellets for reuse.  Fourth, the remaining portions of the diapers are screened again for any further plastic or organic material. Fifth, “water is recaptured from each wash cycle” and sent to an internal treatment plant before being reused in the next batch of washing.  Sixth, the remaining organic waste is dried for use as green energy.

Since diapers now seem to be important at both ends of the human life cycle these days, its good to know that the legacy we have to leave behind won’t be landfills full of diapers.

Popular Science found that Thiol-SAMMS ability to “get mercury-contaminated water 100 times as clean as any other method, for about half the cost” made it worthy of the 2009 award.  Steward Materials has an entire line of SAMMS absorbents that clean not only liquids but gases and solids too. Thiol-SAMMS was initially invented to remove mercury from liquids, suspended solids and gases.  The company has also found that it works to remove “silver, gold, platinum, palladium, lead, copper, cadmium, arsenite, antimony and iodine”. The substance was actually developed at the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and is licensed by Steward Materials. 

The article, A Tiny Solution to a Big Problem, describes Thiol-SAMMS as a “nanoscale technology” similar to tiny sponges that absorb mercury and other materials.  Those tiny sponges are extremely effective. 

In powder form, a single teaspoon of Thiol-SAMMS possesses the same surface area as a football field and can absorb over half its weight in contaminants from low level waste streams…99 percent of the mercury [is] absorbed within the first five minutes…

 

Compared to the cost of using traditional resins or carbon disposal methods to clean 160 liters of waste water, Thiol-SAMMS is estimated to save about $3200.  Part of that savings comes from the solutions ability to “immobilize” mercury or whatever the target substance is, by absorbing large amounts without “creating secondary waste”.  Once a substance is absorbed by the Thiol-SAMMS it is considered nonhazardous waste, greatly reducing disposal costs.

More and more nanoscale technology is being used to create solutions for the environment.  In this case, it is being used to clean deadly substances out of wastewater.

This idea is actually going to be tested in a European Union initiative called SARTRE (Safe Road Trains for the Environment).  According to Exvis, these Road Trains should be hitting the highways within the next few years.  The idea is to reduce fuel consumption and improve safety.  As a bonus, the person sitting in the drivers seat can nap, read, text, eat, put on makeup, play games with their children in the backseat, or any other activity that inventive minds can envision while moving towards their destination.

A professional driver would be leading(driving?) the Road Train.  The following vehicles would be connected and controlled by a “satellite piloting” system.  The truck and following cars would be able to exchange information on such things as when to speed up, slow down, or stop when in a traffic jams.  This system would also allow optimum spacing between vehicles so more cars could be in less space.

The Road Trains would be limited to a maximum of 10 cars.  How do you become a part of a Road Train?  Well the idea is that as you get on the highway you would join the nearest convoy.  Presumably, this would be a simple process that would enable the Road Train, your car and you to distinguish which of hopefully many Road Trains you have joined.  Exiting the Road Train and highway will presumably be a simple and easy to accomplish maneuver.  It isn’t hard to envision the ease by which one could miss their exit while engrossed in a good book, or napping. 

When Road Trains work as they should most of the stress and road rage that accompanies traffic jams should be reduced, productivity and safety increased. 

Of course, the optimum for greenhouse gas reduction and fuel economy would be to have a Road Train composed of cars containing multiple commuters. 

Ford will be including a special bin in its Ford Flex crossover vehicle that is made from plastic reinforced by 20 percent wheat straw.  Ford partnered with Ontario’s BioCar Initiative and the universities of Guelph, Toronto, Waterloo and Windsor to create this fortified plastic for automotive use.  The BioCar Initiative is working with auto manufacturers, universities and private entities to develop usable products from biomass waste for use in automobiles.

The wheat straw-reinforced resin is the BioCar Initiative’s first production-ready application. It demonstrates better dimensional integrity than a non-reinforced plastic and weighs up to 10 percent less than a plastic reinforced with talc or glass.

Wheat straw is the waste portion of wheat.  What is left after the harvest.  Adding wheat straw to the plastic, “reduces petroleum usage by some 20,000 pounds per year, reduces CO2 emissions by 30,000 pounds per year.”

Although Ford is currently only using this biomass plastic for a bin in the 2010 Ford Flex, other potential uses are popping up. 

Already under consideration by the Ford team: center console bins and trays, interior air register and door trim panel components, and armrest liners.

Using wheat straw reinforced plastic is not the only green technology being used in Ford cars.  Ford has been using “soy-based polyurethane foams” in seatbacks and cushions in various models across all of Ford’s product lines.  Many of the seat fabrics are constructed from recycled yarns creating a “64 percent reduction in energy consumption and a 60 percent reduction in CO2 emissions”

Other green initiatives are using “post-consumer recycled resins such as detergent bottles, tires and battery casings” for various parts used in the underbody of the car.  This has diverted “between 25 and 30 million pounds of plastic from landfills”.  Using “repurposed nylon carpeting” in nylon resin has led to Ford’s first “eco-friendly cylinder head cover” used in the 2010 Ford Fusion and Escape.

All of the figures given for CO2 reductions and other environmental savings were provided by Ford and are presumably based on something other than arbitrary figures.  Ford has had the first American hybrids on the market and is making incremental improvements in the mileage of its larger vehicles with such innovations as the EcoBoost system.  But the greatest environmental strides taken by the company may well turn out to be contained in the materials that make up its vehicles.

All of this seems to be lifting Ford out of the doldrums.  Unlike the other big American automakers Ford has managed to turn a profit even without taking stimulus money.

Let’s look at these questions in reverse order since the immediate issue is the creation of new jobs here at home.  Michael Eckhart of ACORE related the following conversation he had with friends in the nuclear energy industry:

Then, I had a conversation recently with some friends in the nuclear power business and asked where the nuclear power plants would come from if we DID begin to build them. The answer was amazing. The super-pure stainless steel will come from Germany, and it would be fabricated into steam-supply-systems in China, and the overall contractor would probably be Mitsubishi from Japan, and the construction contract would probably go to a firm in Korea that would send workers to the U.S. Well, I said, what’s in it for the U.S.? They laughingly said: “the spent fuel.”

The answer to the question, will more jobs quickly be created would be a resounding NO.

Moving on to the next question, “Are new modern nuclear reactors safe?”  The difficulty in this question is finding a nuclear reactor that has been built within the last 10 years.  According to Der Spiegel there aren’t any new reactors built within the last ten years that are up and running.  Current projects in Finland and France are experiencing severe problems with the construction and the design.  Finnish electric company TVO contracted with French nuclear power conglomerate Areva and German company Siemans to design and build the plant.  To date over 3,000 mistakes have been made including:

The concrete, they say, is porous, the steel is brittle and some of the design principles seem so risky that experts from the Finnish nuclear regulatory agency can only shake their heads in wonder.

The French project is experiencing similar problems.  Both are well over budget and are taking years longer to complete.  Even when completed it is possible that neither will actually be put into service.

Of 52 nuclear reactors under construction world wide, 13 have been under construction for 20 years.  Twenty-four reactors may never go into service.  Thirty-six nuclear plants are planned for China, Russia, India, and South Korea.  None of the named countries is known for its stringent safety requirements.

On top of poor designs, lax safety protocols and construction issues there are the problems with untrained personnel.  Twenty-six thousand jobs at existing nuclear power plants will need to be filled over the next few years because older experienced workers are due to retire. 

The answer to the second question is probably not.

The final question is essentially will new nuclear power plants really be better economically for consumers?  In an article by Bill Moore in EV World, he points out that California Energy Commission issued a 2009 report called Comparative Costs of California Central Station Electricity Generation Technologies.  In that report, nuclear energy was the only power source expected to continue rising in cost as the following graph from the Commission shows:

As Der Spiegel in the previously mentioned article pointed out,

"A number of US companies have looked with trepidation at the situation in Finland and the magnitude of investment there," says American economist Paul Joskow of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

In 2003, the US Congressional Budget Office assessed the risk that loan guarantees for the construction of new nuclear power plants could come due at "more than 50 percent." In 2007, six major investment banks wrote to the US Department of Energy that money for new construction could only be raised if the government guaranteed these loans "at 100 percent, and without conditions."

The continually rising costs of construction, along with the long lead time and possibility that the nuclear plant may never go on line or will have problems that will need to be corrected make nuclear power a very expensive source of energy for consumers.  Although the owners of the plants may eventually see profits, consumers will see nothing but rising energy costs for decades to come.

The answer to the first question is NO.

Overall, nuclear plants appear to be a losing proposition for all involved.  That doesn’t include meltdowns like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, both of which are still remembered for the disasters that took place in 1979 and 1986 respectively.  The costs to build are cost prohibitive and the cost to consumers outrageous.

As stated in  an article published by Blorge in June, the trash dump is a problem for ships traveling in the Pacific.  In another article it was pointed out that the dump contains four million tons of plastic and is about twice the size of Texas.  According to the New York Times this floating trash is thousands of miles from any land mass yet it  contains items that have washed into the ocean from various different cities and countries that border the pacific. 

…most of it is caught in what oceanographers call a gyre like this one — an area of heavy currents and slack winds that keep the trash swirling in a giant whirlpool.

Plastic has become the biggest problem because much of it has broken down over time.  The tiny pieces of plastic are “the size of a grain of rice”, small enough to be eaten by fish.  Chemicals, like “PCBs, DDT, and other toxins”  that don’t dissolve in water are soaked up by the plastic.  Those toxic chemicals get ingested by the fish eating the tiny pieces of plastic.    Those fish are eaten by bigger fish that absorb the chemicals from the smaller fish.  Ultimately, the contaminated fish may wind up  on your dinner tables.  We already know how dangerous these chemicals can be when ingested.

But that brings up several questions?  Is the disintegration of the plastic a process that was created to address the ever growing amount of plastic in landfills?  After all plastics that disintegrate have been touted for several years now as a method of reducing the size of landfills.  Is our attempt to speed up the demise of plastic creating part of the problem in the oceans?  Has this problem been aggravated by new technology?

Although companies like Envion would like to collect that plastic and turn it into fuel, it isn’t an undertaking that will occur anytime soon.  The plastic is collecting and disintegrating now causing problems that will need to be addressed before any attempt to collect it from the ocean in mass can be put into motion.

Hopefully, the organizations researching the Pacific Ocean dump will be able to generate solutions to the growing problem – sooner rather than later.