As I beaver away with my fellow group members on our sustainable house project design in readiness for next week's presentation and design submission, I sort of got distracted. My attention was drawn today to an amazing little competition started on the Harvard Business review blog (of all places) which has been brewing away in the depths of cyberspace as showcased by a recent article in the Economist.
Check out http://www.300house.com/ to read all about a competition to design safe, useful and affordable housing construction to be trialled in the slums of India, Haiti and Indonesia.
If you want to join the team, you've got nine days to put your design in the ring.
Tuesday, 31 May 2011
The can of worms that is biofuels...
Yesterday I had to give my presentation on my biofuels project. Unsurprisingly, the presentation side wasn't particularly difficult given the number of times I have presented, facilitated groups, run training and engaged in the art of public speaking in my former lives. Sometimes there are benefits to being the "mature age" student!
I'm going to go out on another limb here and suggest that most biofuels may not be the answer to the current fossil fuel dilemma. Oh the heresy!!
Part of my project discussed the energy lifecycle analysis of the biofuels - that is considering all the energy used to grow them - from clearance of the land, to preparation, planting, irrigation, fertiliser, harvest, transport and processing. A little bit of my agricultural past finally made a positive contribution to my studies!
The biofuel concept was a simple one - they should be carbon neutral because the combustion of a biofuel will emit the same amount of carbon dioxide that was sequestered by the plant in its lifetime and as long as plants still remain on earth, another plant should happily take up the same amount again creating a perfect carbon dioxide cycle. If only that was the case...
One of the most interesting articles I found during my research was a study completed by the Swiss looking at biofuels used in Switzerland (noting that many are imported). Their findings resonant with those of many other researchers, "In principle, each of the fuels examined (bioethanol, biomethanol, biodiesel and biogas) can be produced in an environmentally friendly way – it depends on what raw materials and production technologies are used".
Key impact areas include where land must be cleared or reclaimed (forest and swamps) to create arable land in the first place. Equally, energy crops that require intensive agricultural practices (fertiliser, pesticides, herbicides or anything else which gets you out on your presumably fossil fuel driven tractor) have much higher environmental impacts.
In general, biofuels made from waste materials tend to have the lowest impact. Often they would not have had a useful afterlife, ending up in landfills or being dumped out of sight and out of mind. Waste materials can include rubbish, sewerage and crop residue (straw, husks, bagasse [leftover sugar cane] and wood thinnings).
And all this before we even get into the food versus fuel debate...
I'm going to go out on another limb here and suggest that most biofuels may not be the answer to the current fossil fuel dilemma. Oh the heresy!!
Part of my project discussed the energy lifecycle analysis of the biofuels - that is considering all the energy used to grow them - from clearance of the land, to preparation, planting, irrigation, fertiliser, harvest, transport and processing. A little bit of my agricultural past finally made a positive contribution to my studies!
The biofuel concept was a simple one - they should be carbon neutral because the combustion of a biofuel will emit the same amount of carbon dioxide that was sequestered by the plant in its lifetime and as long as plants still remain on earth, another plant should happily take up the same amount again creating a perfect carbon dioxide cycle. If only that was the case...
One of the most interesting articles I found during my research was a study completed by the Swiss looking at biofuels used in Switzerland (noting that many are imported). Their findings resonant with those of many other researchers, "In principle, each of the fuels examined (bioethanol, biomethanol, biodiesel and biogas) can be produced in an environmentally friendly way – it depends on what raw materials and production technologies are used".
Key impact areas include where land must be cleared or reclaimed (forest and swamps) to create arable land in the first place. Equally, energy crops that require intensive agricultural practices (fertiliser, pesticides, herbicides or anything else which gets you out on your presumably fossil fuel driven tractor) have much higher environmental impacts.
In general, biofuels made from waste materials tend to have the lowest impact. Often they would not have had a useful afterlife, ending up in landfills or being dumped out of sight and out of mind. Waste materials can include rubbish, sewerage and crop residue (straw, husks, bagasse [leftover sugar cane] and wood thinnings).
And all this before we even get into the food versus fuel debate...
Wednesday, 25 May 2011
What is life cycle energy?
Today I did my first "closed book" quiz since November 1997. It wasn't a particularly pleasant experience - the questions were all fair and reasonable but my poor (now considerably older) little brain is out of the habit of rote learning and recalling on cue. Not looking forward to my two "proper" exams later in June, but I digress.
The last question in the quiz required us to calculate the life cycle energy for two different house constructions and then recommend the one with the lowest overall energy use. Imagine my surprise when I came home and sat down for a spot of mindless television (between other assignments), only to discover tonight on the New Inventors on ABC 1 the first item was on a new software tool which helps calculate embodied energy and lifecycle operating energy! The coincidence given today's quiz was slightly unnerving..
The concept is simple (but complex to determine the actual numbers used in the calculation).
Life cycle Energy = (Operating Energy x Life of building) + Embodied Energy
Where:
The last question in the quiz required us to calculate the life cycle energy for two different house constructions and then recommend the one with the lowest overall energy use. Imagine my surprise when I came home and sat down for a spot of mindless television (between other assignments), only to discover tonight on the New Inventors on ABC 1 the first item was on a new software tool which helps calculate embodied energy and lifecycle operating energy! The coincidence given today's quiz was slightly unnerving..
The concept is simple (but complex to determine the actual numbers used in the calculation).
Life cycle Energy = (Operating Energy x Life of building) + Embodied Energy
Where:
- Operating energy is all the energy you use in your house to heat, cool etc - i.e. run your house
- Life of building is its expected lifetime - often estimated only 25-30 years
- Embodied Energy - all the energy used in the extraction, processing and transportation of the raw materials, manufacture of the building materials and construction of the building (what gets left in and out of the system boundary can be a point of contention). Typical domestic buildings in Australia have embodied energy values of 5.5-6 Giga Joules per metre squared.
Like all things sustainable, there are trade-offs. Often houses with high embodied energy (constructed with steel, concrete or with a number imported specialty efficiency items) will have much lower operating costs over their lifetime (in the best case scenario not requiring artificial heating or cooling). Equally a house with low embodied energy may not perform as well thermally, requiring use (or additional use) of heating and/or cooling.
That's where life cycle energy can help broker a peace deal. It will allow you to compare different constructions and decide whether the trade-off is worth it!
If you are interested in the software, check out this link http://etool.net.
Monday, 23 May 2011
And the science says....
This is not a diatribe about hard-core climate change deniers (after all,we all know at least one and hopefully agree that it would be a waste of perfectly good positive energy). Nor is it about those who are happy to wait until they are knee deep in water on their favourite beach esplanade (where normally they would be sitting drinking a suitable beverage and admiring the beach etc) before they suddenly cry "But no-one told me this would happen, really" or "I didn't think it would be this bad".
For those who like to think about the bigger picture here on earth, the millennium ecosystem assessment may be of interest. Its objective was summarised as "to assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being and the scientific basis for action needed to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of those systems and their contribution to human well-being".
Yes, the scientific basis, that logical, rational reasoning behind why we need to improve the way we manage and interact with all those ecosystems which make up our planet (and funnily enough do not revolve around us). The fact I like most is that it isn't the work of a small group of people but rather involved the work of 1360 scientists.
ONE of the disturbing findings included;
"Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fiber and fuel. This has resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on Earth." Note the concept of global warming isn't even mentioned!
For those who like to think about the bigger picture here on earth, the millennium ecosystem assessment may be of interest. Its objective was summarised as "to assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being and the scientific basis for action needed to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of those systems and their contribution to human well-being".
Yes, the scientific basis, that logical, rational reasoning behind why we need to improve the way we manage and interact with all those ecosystems which make up our planet (and funnily enough do not revolve around us). The fact I like most is that it isn't the work of a small group of people but rather involved the work of 1360 scientists.
ONE of the disturbing findings included;
"Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fiber and fuel. This has resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on Earth." Note the concept of global warming isn't even mentioned!
Even if you believe we aren't contributing to the changes in atmosphere, we have definitely left a scar here on earth that needs to be addressed. It also highlights the underlying theme of the precautionary principle (for a refresher see ESD - that's not a party drug), that uncertainty is not a reason not to do something that could potentially have a significant effect on the environment.
Carbon dioxide is a colourless, odourless liquid so it is often out of sight, out of mind. Yet a polluted stream or a dried up wetland is ripe with visual clues that things are not OK.
What can you do which will make a positive difference in your ecosystem today?
Carbon dioxide is a colourless, odourless liquid so it is often out of sight, out of mind. Yet a polluted stream or a dried up wetland is ripe with visual clues that things are not OK.
What can you do which will make a positive difference in your ecosystem today?
Tuesday, 17 May 2011
Sustainability on the inside...
As I was reviewing my early notes on sustainable buildings for an upcoming quiz, my attention was drawn to all the elements which affect indoor environments. For many of us, our primary concern for all things environmental is for those things that our activities affect in the outside environment.
When was the last time you thought about making your indoor environment a better place to be? Do you ever have more than a passing thought about the following in your numerous indoor environments;
Perhaps if I put into perspective the fact that Australians spend up to 95% of their time indoors (according to the good folks at CSIRO), then maybe that may pique at least some curiosity?
Be bold and educate yourself. You may wish to start with the State of Knowledge Report -Air toxics and indoor air quality in Australia. In any case, this week's challenge is to think about how to make your environment sustainable on the inside!
When was the last time you thought about making your indoor environment a better place to be? Do you ever have more than a passing thought about the following in your numerous indoor environments;
- indoor air quality
- ventilation
- air temperature and humidity
- noise and acoustics
- glare
- access to daylight and exterior views
- quality of light
- quality of water
Perhaps if I put into perspective the fact that Australians spend up to 95% of their time indoors (according to the good folks at CSIRO), then maybe that may pique at least some curiosity?
Be bold and educate yourself. You may wish to start with the State of Knowledge Report -Air toxics and indoor air quality in Australia. In any case, this week's challenge is to think about how to make your environment sustainable on the inside!
Sunday, 15 May 2011
Energy efficiency - is it sustainable?
Here's a heretical thought for the day. Perhaps just achieving improved energy efficiency is not so sustainable after all. While doing "more with less" is definitely commendable and most cost effective, if the resource is not renewable and nothing is done to recycle or reclaim it, then it will just take longer to use it up! In the end, the resource is still exhausted.
Energy efficiency programs are often the initial way to provide funding for increasing the sustainability of practices - after all, when you use less of something, the money you save is available to be directed somewhere else.
Harnessing those savings and creating sustainable systems is the key to making energy efficiency sustainable. Next time you identify a way to save energy, by all means put it into place but then go to that next step - make the changes which make those resources renewable or recyclable.
Energy efficiency programs are often the initial way to provide funding for increasing the sustainability of practices - after all, when you use less of something, the money you save is available to be directed somewhere else.
Harnessing those savings and creating sustainable systems is the key to making energy efficiency sustainable. Next time you identify a way to save energy, by all means put it into place but then go to that next step - make the changes which make those resources renewable or recyclable.
Tuesday, 10 May 2011
Happiness is back, again..
So, it would appear that being miserable just isn't sustainable!
Previously in the life of this blog I discussed happiness under Affluence, Sustainability and Happiness - an unholy trinity and the intrinsic role happiness may have in defining sustainability.
This week I was introduced to the Happy Planet Index (HPI) and for those who are curious to find out more, please feel free to follow the link. While you are there, take the survey and get an indication of your own HPI score.
The concept is compelling - to calculate the "ecological efficiency with which human well-being is delivered around the world". It's not about the happiest people (note that Bhutan has a HPI of 58.5 - in the middle of the rankings) but rather the "relative efficiency with which nations convert the planet’s natural resources into long and happy lives for their citizens".
For a quiet read and contemplation, try the full report so you too can discover all the elements contributing to why with a HPI of 76.1, Costa Rica tops the list. I was surprised to learn that Costa Rica has a very high life expectancy which wasn't something I had associated with Latin/Central America. Unsurprisingly the country at the bottom of the list is Zimbabwe (HPI of 16.6), and directly above it, many of the sub-Saharan countries who are its neighbours.
The elements of happiness are many and varied, as too are their effects on individuals. If you take the survey you may be quite surprised by some of the recommendations. For mine, the recommendation that those who live alone should find themselves a flatmate makes an erroneous assumption - that any company shall make us happy. For those who have ever shared a house/room/flat, you can probably see some of the potential flaws in the model!
Previously in the life of this blog I discussed happiness under Affluence, Sustainability and Happiness - an unholy trinity and the intrinsic role happiness may have in defining sustainability.
This week I was introduced to the Happy Planet Index (HPI) and for those who are curious to find out more, please feel free to follow the link. While you are there, take the survey and get an indication of your own HPI score.
The concept is compelling - to calculate the "ecological efficiency with which human well-being is delivered around the world". It's not about the happiest people (note that Bhutan has a HPI of 58.5 - in the middle of the rankings) but rather the "relative efficiency with which nations convert the planet’s natural resources into long and happy lives for their citizens".
For a quiet read and contemplation, try the full report so you too can discover all the elements contributing to why with a HPI of 76.1, Costa Rica tops the list. I was surprised to learn that Costa Rica has a very high life expectancy which wasn't something I had associated with Latin/Central America. Unsurprisingly the country at the bottom of the list is Zimbabwe (HPI of 16.6), and directly above it, many of the sub-Saharan countries who are its neighbours.
The elements of happiness are many and varied, as too are their effects on individuals. If you take the survey you may be quite surprised by some of the recommendations. For mine, the recommendation that those who live alone should find themselves a flatmate makes an erroneous assumption - that any company shall make us happy. For those who have ever shared a house/room/flat, you can probably see some of the potential flaws in the model!
Friday, 6 May 2011
Word of the Week - Fellmongery
One of those quaint prescribed acts of environmental significance listed in Schedule 1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1993 (SA). I had no idea so I looked it up. Thought I may as well share!
A fellmongery is a operated by, unsurprisingly, a fellmonger. A fellmonger is a person who prepares skins for tanning or leather making by removing fur or wool.
So, it you happen to harbour a desired to begin such a business, please note that it will be considered an act of environmental significance where "the conduct of works for the commercial preservation or treatment of animal skins or hides being works processing more than 5 tonnes of skins or hides per year, but excluding—
(a) the processing of skins or hides by primary producers in the course of primary
production activities outside township areas; or
(b) the processing of skins or hides in the course of taxidermy."
Of course, you may prefer to become a taxidermist instead and revel in the exclusion clause!!
A fellmongery is a operated by, unsurprisingly, a fellmonger. A fellmonger is a person who prepares skins for tanning or leather making by removing fur or wool.
So, it you happen to harbour a desired to begin such a business, please note that it will be considered an act of environmental significance where "the conduct of works for the commercial preservation or treatment of animal skins or hides being works processing more than 5 tonnes of skins or hides per year, but excluding—
(a) the processing of skins or hides by primary producers in the course of primary
production activities outside township areas; or
(b) the processing of skins or hides in the course of taxidermy."
Of course, you may prefer to become a taxidermist instead and revel in the exclusion clause!!
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Bonus marks for participation!
The subject that just keeps giving (ethics, acoustics, water treatment, cyclone technology) came through with a gem today. The Story of Stuff was a the prelude to one of the most painful discussion groups I have ever been obliged to be involved with - matched only by discussion groups in yesterday evening's lecture for the same subject which also felt like pulling teeth. In comparison, running health and safety training for scientists and engineers is a breeze.
If you have a spare 20 minutes, a curious inclination and enough spare bandwith, click on the link above and have a ponder. I liked the visual style of line drawings and then adding the "hidden detail" but as much as I loved the message, I struggled with the delivery style. Determine to post a link despite my reservations, I looked up the site and also happened to find the blog of one of the creators. She had written a post entitled "What's the best way not to get invited back for dinner" which ironically captured the essence of what I didn't like. To me, the greatest art of selling a sustainable message is in the crafting. The power of persuasion, the management of change, capturing hearts and minds - can it be painless? How do we make that voice a chorus, in time and in tune with today?
You see, very few of my fellow students want to be in this subject. It is compulsory for their engineering studies and merely stands between them and a qualification for a career they are not even sure they want or even know why they are there. The discussion group was painful because at the end of this clip they didn't want to discuss it, they didn't want to think about it, they didn't want to be there. We handed up our summary because everyone gets a bonus mark for their assignment if their name and student number is on one of those summaries.
When do we all realise that doing the right thing isn't about a bonus mark, it's the only way we'll be able to participate on the planet!
If you have a spare 20 minutes, a curious inclination and enough spare bandwith, click on the link above and have a ponder. I liked the visual style of line drawings and then adding the "hidden detail" but as much as I loved the message, I struggled with the delivery style. Determine to post a link despite my reservations, I looked up the site and also happened to find the blog of one of the creators. She had written a post entitled "What's the best way not to get invited back for dinner" which ironically captured the essence of what I didn't like. To me, the greatest art of selling a sustainable message is in the crafting. The power of persuasion, the management of change, capturing hearts and minds - can it be painless? How do we make that voice a chorus, in time and in tune with today?
You see, very few of my fellow students want to be in this subject. It is compulsory for their engineering studies and merely stands between them and a qualification for a career they are not even sure they want or even know why they are there. The discussion group was painful because at the end of this clip they didn't want to discuss it, they didn't want to think about it, they didn't want to be there. We handed up our summary because everyone gets a bonus mark for their assignment if their name and student number is on one of those summaries.
When do we all realise that doing the right thing isn't about a bonus mark, it's the only way we'll be able to participate on the planet!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)