Aerial view of Central Park, New York. Original image from Carol M. Highsmith’s America, Library of Congress collection. Digitally enhanced by rawpixel.

Frederick Law Olmsted (1822-1903) is best known for designing Central Park in New York, the US Capitol grounds in Washington, and the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago. He opened the first landscape architecture firm in the US.

But on closer examination, he was much more than just a leading landscape architect. He worked in journalism, sanitation, and health. In this post, we will explore Olmsted as an environmentalist, long before anyone started to use the word.

Olmsted’s formative years

Olmsted’s father saw to it that the family spent plenty of time in the countryside, enjoying the scenery. He also owned an extensive collection of landscape prints. It included works by leading English landscape theorists such as Humphry Repton. Where they sought to enhance natural beauty for the benefit of owners of private estates, Olmsted grew up to apply the same principles for the benefit of the general public.

The elder Olmsted helped him purchase some land on Staten Island.  It had been a wheat farm for more than 150 years and boasted a stone farmhouse more than 100 years old. It had 100 acres of farmland and 25 acres of woods.

Olmsted called the farm Tosomock and owned it from 1847 to 1866. There, he learned the principles of scientific farming, which laid the foundation for his work as environmentalist. He grew fruits and vegetables and cultivated thousands of trees. As Staten Island became more urban, Olmsted founded a society for agricultural improvement there.

He also developed his skills as a designer to beautify the land near his house. It was a Tosomock that he and Calvert Vaux devised the winning plan for designing Central Park as well as at least three other major park projects.

 If he ever had plans to become a gentleman farmer, he failed financially, but what he accomplished there became important experience for his later achievements Could he have failed as a farmer because he was so often absent?

Young Olmsted, world traveler

Olmsted in 1857

As a young man, Olmsted held a wide variety of jobs, including dry goods clerk and seaman. He returned from a year on a merchant ship to China malnourished and exhausted. Long walks in the woods helped his recovery.

He later encountered a book by Swiss philosopher Johann Georg Zimmermann, which verified that rural pursuits and relaxing scenery could heal melancholy and serve as an antidote to emotional problems caused by urban living. Olmsted put these ideas to work in his landscaping career.

He traveled extensively, not only as a seaman but as a journalist. His writings on interviews with Southern plantation owners and their slaves helped expose the evils of slavery and turn the public against it. One of his books based on these articles published in England helped turn public opinion there in favor of the Union.

In 1850, Olmsted took a walking tour of the British Isles. He became familiar with private parks on the estates of the landed aristocracy. Just outside Liverpool, however, he visited a newly opened public park called Birkenhead Park. He realized that democratic America had no similar public amenity. He wrote his first book, Walks and Talks of an American Farmer in England (1852), about the social reform ideas his walking tour inspired.

As Olmsted traveled through the US, he recognized that some of the country’s most unique natural wonders were in danger of ruin from careless development. Without some intervention in the public interest, the growth of cities would threaten the natural world. With the heart of an environmentalist, Olmsted feared “woods which will soon be felled, streams which will be turned into sewers, meadows that will be built on, landscapes that may be shut off . . .” Therefore, he joined the efforts to preserve such important landmarks as Yosemite and Niagara Falls.

Olmsted’s landscape architecture career

Central Park

As a landscape architect, Frederick Law Olmsted first burst on the scene in 1858 when, in partnership with Calvert Vaux, an English-born architect and landscape designer, he designed New York’s Central Park.

Civic leaders in New York City proposed creating a large park in Manhattan as early as the 1840s. The government approved a 778-acre park in 1853. They announced a design competition for it in 1857, and the plan submitted by Olmsted and Vaux won. It took hard work to overcome various schemes to fill the park with commercial activities. They insisted that the park had to include plenty of green space. Central Park, opened in 1858, became America’s first landscaped public park.

It was the first of many projects in the US and Canada where he designed parks and other impressive grounds that took advantage of the area’s best natural features.

Other parks and the park system

Olmsted in 1893 / Engraving by James Norman, based on a photograph, via Wikimedia Commons

Olmsted’s design for Montreal’s Mount Royal Park transformed a modest hill into a semblance of alpine peaks by exposing rocky crags and planting the kinds of trees found in mountainous areas.

His design for the World’s Columbian Exposition took advantage of Lake Michigan. It served as a backdrop, but also much more. Olmsted created some Venice-style canals to bring the lake to the fairgrounds.

In 1865, Vaux and Olmsted collaborated on Prospect Park in Brooklyn, then the third-largest city in the country. It features not only walkways, a meadow, and a lake, but also wilder features, such as a pump-powered water flowing through a gully hewn from rock. Olmsted considered its design even more successful than Central Park.

The two invented the park system for Buffalo, New York, in 1868. They designed three parks and connected them with broad, tree-lined avenues they called parkways, so that people could get from one park to another without leaving green spaces.

The park system Olmsted designed for Boston comprises multiple green spaces, all varied in design and terrain and soon dubbed the Emerald Necklace.

Other achievements

Besides parks and park systems, Olmsted designed private estates (for example, Biltmore near Asheville, North Carolina, for George Vanderbilt) and college campuses (for example, Wellesley College and Stanford University), the grounds of the US capitol, and more.

Olmsted’s career has important contributions to society in a variety of fields. In all of it, he was a socially conscious reformer dedicated to the public good.

He became a scientific farmer because the largely agricultural nation needed to learn cutting-edge practices. He designed parks because people living overcrowded cites needed opportunities for recreation. And he insisted that civic engagement and public health depended on having public spaces that belong to all Americans.

The Back Bay Fens

Olmsted’s approach to designing parks qualifies him as a pioneering environmentalist. His work on Boston’s Emerald Necklace goes beyond his other environmental achievements. It combined existing parks with some new ones, including the already existing but very new Arnold Arboretum.  He connected all seven parks with parkways to make a single system almost seven miles long.

For one of them, the Back Bay Fens, he designed and executed the nation’s first wetlands reclamation. The city had purchased an inexpensive tract of land for a public recreation ground. It had become known as Back Bay Park. The land had little market value because drainage and sewerage from much of Boston and its suburbs passed through it to the Charles River.

The city assumed that the water could somehow be diverted elsewhere. Olmsted explained why that plan was unworkable. Water level in the Charles River varied according to high and low tide. At high tide, the river level prevented outflow from the drainage basin. The water in the basin then became ugly to look at, malodorous, and a breeding ground for disease.

Olmsted’s official report

Olmsted’s 1879 plan for the Back Bay Fens / via Picryl

In an official report, Olmsted noted that he had designed

a basin with intercepting sewers, inlets and outlets, and a series of automatic gates so disposed that, under ordinary circumstances, the surface of the water within the basin will be at a level about midway between extreme high water and mean low water of the Charles river [sic], with a fluctuation not exceeding one foot, while that of the river may be sixteen feet. The water in the basin will then have the general aspect of a salt creek, passing with a meandering course, for the most part, through or along the border of a sea-side meadow, but will not be subject to fall with the tide, so far as to exhibit the disagreeable aspect which in natural tide-basins, twice a day, appears in the form of slimy mud-banks. The water, when the work is complete, will ordinarily be clean and wholesome, and its immediate banks verdant.

The basin, therefore, should not be open to the public except at its rim. This plan for mitigating the area was incompatible with the ordinary definition of a park. He regretted that a park had been announced, since recreation could only be incidental to his ultimate plans for making the area both safe and attractive. Nevertheless, the plans certainly did include developing various recreation areas:

Passage across it must be by causeways and bridges. Its boundaries, which will be over two miles in length, may, however, be followed by wheelways, bridle roads and walks; and these, together with any needed passages across the basin, will command views over it and may be shaded by trees.

He would make the area beautiful, but the kinds of plants normally associated with parks would not grow in the basin. Instead, he would plant species that could live in brackish water.

Olmsted’s original conception destroyed

In 1910, a dam was built on the Charles River. No longer was the basin flushed with seawater by the tides. Instead, it became a freshwater lagoon. Nothing Olmsted planted there could survive the change.

Fortunately, Arthur Shurcliff, an Olmsted protégé, redesigned the Fens with plants that could thrive in freshwater. Back Bay Fens remains a popular jewel in the Emerald Necklace to this day.

Olmsted’s legacy and threats

Statue of Olmsted at the North Carolina Arboretum / Don Sniegowski via Flickr

Like many other people who had great success and respect in the public eye, Olmsted had a difficult personal life. He had a strained relationship with his wife. Only two of their children survived infancy. Other people close to him also died untimely deaths. A near-fatal carriage accident left him with some permanent injuries. He also had to deal with depression and other emotional ailments.

Poor health, both physical and mental, forced him to retire in 1895. He spent the last five years of his life as a resident patient at the McLean Hospital in Brookline, Massachusetts, one of the mental hospitals for which he had designed the grounds. He got no benefit from his design, unfortunately. It was never actually built.

Among other troubles, Olmsted feared that his creations would not survive for long. His idea of maintaining green space in the middle of a city was always vulnerable to development. Indeed, the Obama Presidential Library has taken over a tract of Olmsted’s Jackson Park in Chicago.

Some of his parks have suffered neglect. There was a time when residents of New York did not feel safe visiting Central Park because of the incidence of crime there. City government has addressed the issue.

But all in all, more than a century after his death, his legacy—as landscape architect and environmentalist––lives on and continues to enrich the lives of people from all segments of society.

Olmsted Brothers

Olmsted’s children deserve a lot of credit for maintaining and extending his legacy.

He had moved his business to Brookline, Massachusetts, and trained his son Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. and stepson John Charles Olmsted and others to continue his work. His daughter Marion Olmsted was likewise involved in the family business as a photographer and draftsman. The full extent of her contribution remains little explored

They continued as Olmsted Brothers, Landscape Architects, a firm that continued after their deaths until 1979. The business’ grounds, called Fairfield, are now administered by the National Park Service as the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site.

Sources:

Frederick Law Olmsted: landscapes for the public good / Planting Fields Foundation
Olmsted “paints with lakes” / Justin Martin, American Heritage. Summer 2023
Olmsted’s Tosomock Farm, Staten Island, N.Y. / The Cultural Landscape Foundation. August 10, 2017
Report of the landscape architect [regarding Back Bay Fens] / Frederick Law Olmsted. December 24, 1883. Reprinted by the National Association for Olmsted Parks, Autumn 2010

The post Frederick Law Olmsted: a pioneering environmentalist appeared first on Sustaining Our World.

Contributed by Anna Brui

Every decision we make regarding our homes plays a crucial role in shaping our environmental impact and the depth of our pockets. Do you look at the world around you through energy-efficient windows? Double- or triple-glazed windows?

We’ve all been there, staring at those drafty, ageing windows that seem to let in as much cold air as they do natural light.

You might be contemplating whether to invest in new, energy-efficient windows to combat these problems and contribute to sustainable living. The first question that often pops up is, “What does it cost to replace windows in the first place?”

What are double and triple-glazed windows?

Double-glazed windows and triple-glazed windows have two or three layers of glass, respectively. A spacer, which is typically filled with air or a gas such as argon or krypton separates the layers. It helps to insulate the window and reduce heat loss

For example, if you live in a climate with cold winters and hot summers, double and triple-glazed windows can keep your home cool in the summer and warm in the winter. They can also help to reduce noise pollution and improve the overall comfort of your home.

Double-glazed windows are more common than triple-glazed windows, and they are also less expensive. However, triple-glazed windows are more energy-efficient than double-glazed windows, meaning they can help you save more money on your energy bills.

Speaking of saving money, it isn’t the only benefit double and triple-glazed windows bring.

Benefits of double and triple-glazed windows

• Energy efficiency. Double and triple-glazed windows can help to reduce your energy bills by keeping your home cool in the summer and warm in the winter. The extra layers of glass help to insulate your home and prevent heat from escaping.
• Noise reduction. Double and triple-glazed windows can also help to reduce noise pollution. The extra layers of glass help to block out sound waves.
• Improved comfort. Double and triple-glazed windows can help to improve the overall comfort of your home by reducing drafts and making it easier to maintain a comfortable temperature.
• Increased property value. Double and triple-glazed windows can also increase the property value of your home, because buyers will see them as an energy-saving feature that can save homeowners money on their energy bills.

Of course, energy-efficient windows are more expensive than traditional single-glazed windows. The upfront cost can be a barrier for some homeowners, but it is important to remember that energy-efficient windows can save you money on your energy bills in the long run.

How much do energy-efficient windows cost and save?

There are several factors which influence the cost of double and triple-glazed windows like their size, type, window quality, as well as fitting costs.

For example, a large single-glazed window made of wood will be more expensive than a small single-glazed window made of vinyl. Similarly, a triple-glazed window made of aluminium will be more expensive than a triple-glazed window made of vinyl.

On average, you could pay anywhere between $100–$3,000 for double or triple-glazed windows.

While this sounds like a lot, eventually savings will cover the initial investment. As a general rule of thumb, double-glazed windows can save you up to 50% on your energy bills, and triple-glazed windows can save you up to 70% on your energy bills.

Which window glazing should I choose?

Generally, double-glazed windows are a good option for most homes, especially those in moderate climates. They are more energy-efficient than single-glazed windows and provide better noise insulation and can make your home more comfortable.

Triple-glazed windows are the most energy-efficient type of window available. They are a good option for homes in cold climates or for homes with high energy bills.

So, while deciding the two window types, here are our tips for choosing the right windows for your home:

• Consider the climate you live in. If you live in a cold climate, you will need windows that are designed to keep your home warm. If you live in a hot climate, you will need windows that are designed to keep your home cool.
• Consider the type of glass. There are a variety of different types of glass available for windows. Some types of glass are more energy-efficient than others.
• Consider the frame material. The frame material can also affect the energy efficiency of your windows. Wood and vinyl frames are the most popular choices for double and triple-glazed windows.
• Consider the warranty. Make sure to choose windows that come with a long warranty. This will protect you in case of any problems with the windows.

Ready to level up your comfort with energy-efficient windows? Then make sure you get quotes from multiple window installers. Be sure to compare the cost of the windows, the installation costs, and the warranty.

We wish you the best of luck on this journey to a warmer, calmer, and greener future!

Author bio:

Anna is an SEO content writer at GreenMatch. She adheres to ethical consumerism and strives to support companies with a broader commitment to cruelty-free practices. For Anna, it’s more than a personal choice; it’s a way of contributing to a more compassionate and environmentally conscious world.

The post Energy-efficient windows: are double and triple glazed windows worth it? appeared first on Sustaining Our World.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Large-scale geothermal energy relies on the heat and water that exists below the surface of the earth, but not everywhere has accessible naturally occurring hot water. A fairly recent technique called enhanced geothermal energy or hot dry rock geothermal energy makes it possible generate electricity from the earth’s heat in more places.

Getting off fossil fuels to generate electricity requires using renewable energy, but renewable energy has downsides, for example, intermittency. The sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow. Battery backup overcomes intermittency, but it has its own environmental problems.

Enhanced geothermal energy can play an important role in the energy mix, but, of course, nothing is perfect. What is enhanced geothermal energy and what are possible problems?

An overview of enhanced geothermal energy

Geothermal energy does not have to be built on a massive scale. Heat pumps are applications of geothermal energy for home use. Even the deepest heat pump installations require digging only a few hundred feet. Geothermal energy to supply electricity to the grid requires not only much deeper digging but specific geological features.

Utility scale geothermal energy uses naturally occurring underground reservoirs of hot water and steam to power turbines. They require underground rock formations to be permeable to the water. Enhanced geothermal systema (EGS) are human-made reservoirs that accomplish the same thing.

The largest geothermal energy power plant in the world, called The Geysers, is located near Santa Rosa, California. It produces 20% of California’s renewable energy and emits no greenhouse gases. It is built in an area with a natural reservoir of hot water and steam. Not many other places in the world have such a geological advantage.

Almost anywhere in the world has hot, dry rock available deep beneath the surface, but it provides only the heat. A technique similar to fracking for oil and natural gas drilling makes it possible to pump water down there to make an artificial reservoir of hot water and steam. Injecting water into rock fractures it, providing both fluid and permeability.

It is then possible to pump the hot water up closer to the surface to power turbines and generate electricity, then return the water to the deeper level to reheat it. That is, with EGS, it is theoretically possible to provide cheap, abundant, predictable, and clean energy everywhere.

Some problems with enhanced geothermal energy

Wikimedia Commons

Of course, for all the advantages of enhanced geothermal energy, it is not a magic solution to all our energy problems. It has a big problem of its own: earthquakes.

For a long time, researchers knew that small earthquakes frequently occur near EGS sites. They assumed that the technique could only cause small quakes. Then, an enhanced geothermal power plant in Korea apparently touched off a 5.5 magnitude earthquake, which caused $75 million worth of damages in the area.

The fact is that no one really knows the risk of causing a large quake. Especially, no one knows if EGS could cause a magnitude 7 or 8 quake, which would be catastrophic. That consideration did not keep a company from developing the Salton Sea Geothermal field right at the southern end of the San Andreas fault in Southern California.

Safe EGS requires both careful risk analysis and procedures to keep the reservoirs at a steady state by injecting water evenly throughout the site. Humans do not seem to be very good at risk analysis. The location of the Salton Sea field neatly demonstrates our utter incompetence of careful planning.

How many of the bright ideas in this generation will prove to be very bad ideas a few decades from now? After all, burning coal once seemed like a good way to save trees!

Two new enhanced geothermal systems in Utah

On September 25, 2023, Texas-based Fervo Energy broke ground at Cape Station in Beaver County, Utah on what will become the world’s largest enhanced geothermal project. It will start to produce electricity in 2026. When it reaches full-scale production in 2028, it will produce more than 400 megawatts of electricity around the clock. Researchers estimate that southwestern Utah has more than 10 gigawatts of geothermal reserves.

The Cape Station project benefits from research and data collection from the Department of Energy’s Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy (FORGE).

Another new project near Milford, Utah, the Rodatherm Geothermal Test Bed, is trying out a different approach. Instead of water, it will use the Organic Rankine Cycle, which converts organic fluids with a lower boiling point than water directly into electricity. It does not require injecting fluids.

The Utah Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approved it in September 2023. In partnership with the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Utah-based Rodatherm will operate it for twelve months to assess its commercial viability. After that, if it wants to continue to operate the wells, it must receive additional analysis of its environmental impact according to the National Environmental Policy Act.

The alliance opposed three earlier geothermal lease sales, but it approves of the site Rodatherm selected. The BLM conducted a nine-month environmental assessment starting on December 12, 2022. It estimated impact on soil erosion and bird species during construction to be low and made recommendations for mitigating possible long-term impacts.

The description of this project that I read does not mention earthquake risk. The project apparently doesn’t require fracking, which seems to be the culprit in causing seismic activity. It will be worth keeping track of this technology.

Sources:

Assessing geothermal energy: How could a new project impact Southwest Utah? / Alysha Lundgren, St George News. October 20, 2023 Enhanced geothermal systems / Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy
Fervo Energy breaks ground on next-gen geothermal project / Renewable Energy World. September 25, 2023
Fervo Energy Cape Station groundbreaking / The Western Way. September 28, 2023
The pros and cons of enhanced geothermal energy systems / Will McCarthy, Yale Climate Connections. February 6, 2020

The post Enhanced geothermal energy: is it a renewable solution? appeared first on Sustaining Our World.

Hydrogen fuel cell block diagram from Wikimedia Commons

I have written a few times before about the technological and financial hurdles facing the development of green hydrogen. Along the way, I mentioned specific companies working on hydrogen fuel cell projects.

Hydrogen is not so much an energy source as an energy storage medium. Hydrogen fuel cells operate on the same general principle as batteries, but they can operate continuously as long as they have a steady supply of hydrogen gas. They emit no gases at the end of the process, only water.

Now that it is possible, at least in California, to buy a hydrogen-powered car, it seems good to look at how much progress has been made in green hydrogen. How many of the companies I have mentioned before are still in business? What is available now for sale? What is happening to address the economic issues?

Prospective uses of hydrogen

Some uses for hydrogen fuel / Wikimedia Commons 

Pure hydrogen doesn’t exist in nature. The only way to get it is to separate it from other molecules. The long-established method of doing so, steam reforming, splits hydrogen from fossil fuels, a dirty process that pumps greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

So-called green hydrogen uses electrolysis, powered by renewable energy, to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. Although it causes fewer environmental problems, its high price tag has made it difficult to establish.

That said, for years, we have heard promises that green hydrogen can play a role in several different industries:

• Personal transportation (fuel-cell electric cars and light trucks)
• Mass transportation (buses, trains, and even airplanes)
• Freight (hydrogen-powered long-haul trucks and possibly cargo ships)
• Warehouse operations (hydrogen fork lifts, pallet jacks, etc. to improve indoor air quality)
• Backup power generation (especially for large-scale use such as data centers or grid storage)

Some ongoing green hydrogen projects

The chief problem with green hydrogen is the cost of traditional electrolysis. Therefore, researchers have been looking for cheaper ways to make it.

An academic research project

Hydrogen research / Canadian Nuclear Laboratory via Flickr

In 2019, scientists at the University of Calgary announced that they had found a way to crack oil to capture hydrogen without having to remove it from the ground. That is, it produced desirable hydrogen while leaving undesirable carbon dioxide behind. Green hydrogen, in other words, without electrolysis.

These scientists have worked with the Canadian company Proton Technologies to commercialize the process. Their work is ongoing, and a recent scholarly paper describes its progress.

One failure

Of course, academic research can seem to take a leisurely approach. Startup companies must work faster, but they have a high failure rate. In 2016, Joi Scientific announced a method of deriving hydrogen from seawater. Unfortunately, it didn’t work, and it took the company three years to admit as much to its investors.

Fortunately, all the other projects I have written about are still at work toward their goals.

Continuing, promising green hydrogen projects

SGH2 has been working with the scientifically sound but still experimental process of plasma enhanced gasification to create green hydrogen. Other companies have been working on it for waste-to-energy. SGH2 has recently contracted with the city of Lancaster, California to build and operate a “greener than green” hydrogen plant there.

SunHydrogen, formerly HyperSolar, has not yet gotten to the point of building a production facility, but it has recently announced a technological breakthrough in its development of a nanoparticle-based solar device with inexpensive catalysts to produce hydrogen inexpensively using sunlight.

A proposed hydrogen city

Perhaps the most intriguing of the projects that I have come across over the past decade is the proposed city of Neom in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government announced the intention to build a new city from scratch in 2018.

The plan is for Neom to cover 10,230 square miles and eventually be home to 9 million people. Among other ambitious goals, it will include the Octagon, a floating port and research hub. Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest oil producer, but its government plans for Neom to run entirely on green hydrogen, with no oil at all. It wants to become a leader in renewable energy.

Many analysts are skeptical that such an ambitious project can ever succeed, but the global utility project developer Acwa Power has announced the beginning of construction on a green hydrogen production plant on the Octagon. It expects completion by 2026.

Once in operation, it will generate green hydrogen and use it to make up to 1.2 million tons of green ammonia every year for export. Ammonia is easier to transport and store than hydrogen gas and can easily be reconverted to hydrogen.

Hydrogen fuel cell projects in operation

While finding inexpensive and scalable ways to produce green hydrogen is still the in the experimental phase, hydrogen fuel cells are a proven technology. Regardless of the source of hydrogen, it has been difficult to find economic and scalable ways to use them. Here are two kinds of hydrogen fuel cell projects that are making progress.

Creating electricity with hydrogen fuel cell backup.

Four 30-kilowatt fuel cells, a hydrogen storage system, and power-conversion equipment packaged in a 20-foot shipping container / Hydrogenics Corporation via Flickr

The French-based Engie SA is working on a number of hydrogen fuel cell projects all over the world. As early as 2017, it proposed a demonstration project on the Semakau Landfill in Singapore to build a microgrid. That is, it does not aim to find inexpensive ways to make green hydrogen. It intends to develop a new and practical use for hydrogen fuel cells.

People living in remote areas of the world where there is no grid have long relied on loud and dirty diesel generators to obtain electricity. Engie SA aims to provide electricity using renewable energy instead, with hydrogen storage to mitigate intermittency.

The site was commissioned during the pandemic. Since the summer of 2022, it has operated 24/7 using only renewable energy. It is therefore no longer an ambitious proposal. It is now a working research and development facility, one step closer to bringing clean electricity to remote areas.

Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles.

As with battery electric vehicles, fuel-cell electric vehicles require infrastructure that does not yet exist before they can be practical. Nonetheless, about 15,000 of them are now traveling California roads. At least eight manufacturers either offer hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles for sale or have at least one in development.

Toyota hydrogen fuel cell at the 2014 New York International Auto Show / Joseph Brent via Flickr

Toyota began developing hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in 1992 and began to mass produce them in 2014 with the introduction of the Mirai. It sold 2,094 of them in 2022, which marks a 20% increase over its sales in 2021. It seems like a paltry number, but battery electric vehicles likewise got off to a slow start.

The Mirai’s success encouraged Toyota to announce development of new hydrogen fuel cell projects. One is a hydrogen fuel cell version of its Hilux pickup truck. Another is to develop a hydrogen engine for class 8 semis to replace diesel engines. It is also working on hydrogen fuel cell buses.  In addition, the Yaris H2 will use hydrogen as a combustible fuel rather than fuel cells.

Hyundai introduced a fuel cell SUV, the Nexo, in 2018 and a fuel cell heavy duty truck, the Xcient, in 2020. It is also working on a hybrid fuel cell/battery electric model.

Honda offered a hydrogen fuel cell version of its Clarity model between 2017 and 2021. Its sales were insufficient to continue to make it, but in 2022, it announced its intention to introduce a hybrid hydrogen and battery version of its CR-V to the US market in 2024.

BMW developed a hydrogen concept car in 2019 and has recently announced plans to introduce a demonstration fleet of less than 100 cars. It plans eventually to offer a hydrogen version of its X5.

Riversimple, a fairly new British manufacturer, introduced its Rasa hydrogen concept car in 2016 and plans to produce 5,000 of them annually beginning in 2023. Jaguar, an established British company, has announced the intention to make a hydrogen version of its Landrover Defender SUV. It hasn’t announced when it plans to make it public.

The Italian company Pininfarina has announced the concept vehicle NamX HUV and expects to make production models by 2025.

Finally, the American company Hyperion made a one-off XP-1 hydrogen powered concept car in 2020.

New government subsidies for hydrogen fuel cell projects

Development of green hydrogen and specific hydrogen fuel cell projects has faced scientific, technological, and economic hurdles. Like renewable energy in general, it is less well understood and more expensive than traditional fossil fuels.

Different fuels have traditionally been measured in different way: gallons or liters for liquid fuels such as gasoline or diesel, cubic meters for natural gas or hydrogen, and metric tons for solid fuels such as coal. These differences have made it difficult to compare costs. It makes more sense to compare the energy in fuels instead of considering their weight or volume. The unit for doing so is the gigajoule (GJ).

Considering all energy types, the US consumes 280 GJ per capita per year. The retail price of diesel fuel, including fuel taxes, is about $30 in the US. The International Energy Agency estimates the cost of producing green hydrogen in the range of $25-59 per GJ. The costs of electrolyzers and the renewable energy needed to run them are declining.

The US Inflation Reduction Act (2022) offers a $3/kilogram tax credit for green hydrogen and smaller credits for less-green hydrogen over ten years. The subsidies will cost $13.2 billion in that time and amount to $23 per GJ.

Even without the subsidy, then, hydrogen is competitive with diesel. Manufacturing trucks with fuel-cell electric drive trains remains more expensive than diesel trucks. The infrastructure for refueling hydrogen-fuel-cell cars and trucks has not yet been built. The subsidies should hasten both developments.

Natural gas and coal remain less expensive than green hydrogen. The US tax subsidy should close most of the fuel cost gap between hydrogen and natural gas, but it is not enough to close the gap with coal. The US needs some kind of carbon pricing to accomplish that.

Related posts on Sustaining Our World

Can hydrogen fuel cells provide green electricity and storage?
Green hydrogen and green ammonia: will they ever fulfill their promise? 
Green hydrogen energy: when will it fulfill its promise?
Hydrogen as an alternative fuel 
Using solar electrolysis for clean hydrogen energy storage

Sources

8 vehicle manufacturers working on hydrogen fuel cell cars / Fastech. July 7, 2023
“Green” hydrogen portends progress on climate, with government help / Steven Fries, Peterson Institute for International Economics. March 29, 2023

The post Hydrogen fuel cell projects: how much progress have they made? appeared first on Sustaining Our World.

Electric cars have certain advantages over gasoline cars. Chief among them, electric cars don’t emit greenhouse gases. They also have fewer moving parts and require less maintenance. For example, there is no engine oil to change. But before we can transition to them, we have to solve problems with electric car charging infrastructure.

If we’re not careful, we can simply exchange one kind of bad environmental impact for another. Electric cars have their own potential environmental downsides. To begin with, electric car batteries require mining of minerals—not only lithium but cobalt, manganese, and nickel.

When it comes to electric car charging, will we develop infrastructure carefully, or will we rush into it and find we have created new problems?

What kinds of electric car charging stations are there?

A gas station has some number of pumps to allow several cars to fill up at once. A gas station also offers a choice of several different kinds and grades of fuel. Similarly, a charging station will have one or more charging posts, and each post will have one or more charging ports. A homeowner’s garage amounts to a small charging station capable of charging one or two vehicles at a time.

A commercial charging station will probably be able to accommodate several vehicles at once and may offer more than one power level.

Level 1 chargers

work from standard residential wiring, that is, a 120-volt AC outlet. Per hour, they provide between three and five miles of range for an electric car, supplying about 1.3 to 2.4 kilowatts (kW) of power. Assuming a driver has the car plugged in for eight hours, overnight charging would provide between 24 and 40 miles of range, probably more than enough for the next day’s driving.

Electric car charging with an L1 charger to bring a completely empty battery electric vehicle (BEV) to 100% charge would take from 40 to 50 hours. It would take 5-6 hours to fully charge a plug-in hybrid vehicle (PHEV)

Level 2 chargers

operate with 240-volt home systems or 208-volt commercial systems. They average 7.6 kW, although some provide as little as 3 kW or as much as 19 kW. L2 chargers provide between 18 and 25 miles of range per hour. An empty BEV would take between four and ten hours to charge and a PHEV would take one or two hours. L2 chargers are suitable for companies that provide chargers for their employers.

Level 3 chargers

use 480-volt AC or DC chargers for rapid electric car charging. They provide 50-350 kW, enough to charge an empty BEV to 80 percent in 20-40 minutes and 100 percent in 60-90 minutes. How much range L3 chargers supply depends on the size and design of the battery. These chargers are not suitable for PHEVs.

Can any electric car use any charger? Generally speaking, any car can use any L1 or L2 charger. That is, they all use the same standard plug. As far as L3 chargers are concerned, Tesla offers a Supercharger, which will recharge a Tesla battery in about 15 minutes. It is not compatible with other cars, but it is possible to buy an adapter.

How many charging stations will we need?

As of 2023, 46,000 public charging stations in the US offer more than 115,000 charging ports. 88% of them offer only L2 charging, while 40% of L3 chargers operate only at 50 kW.

The Biden administration hopes zero-emission vehicles will make half of the vehicles sold in 2030. The desired mix includes BEVs, PHEVs, and fuel-cell electric vehicles. How many government target goals are actually ever met? Let’s assume, for simplicity, that 48 million electric vehicles will be on the road by 2030.

Estimates of how many additional stations for electric car charging we will need to meet that goal vary widely. For one thing, fuel-cell vehicles require completely different charging technology. For another, most charging will take place at home.

But how much?

The US Department of Energy assumes an 80% at-home charging rate. Other estimates claim that owners of only about half of those vehicles will have garages or other reliable off-street parking at single-family homes. Apartments, condominiums, and town-home developments may or may not provide charging facilities. The rate of home charging might not exceed 60%.

The largest estimate I have seen figures that 48 million cars will require 553,000 workplace L2 charging ports, 675,000 public L2 charging ports, and 533,000 L3 charging ports. Other estimates put the need smaller, but adequate electric car charging will require nothing less than 20 times as many charging ports as we have today. To meet that goal, we will need to install hundreds of them every day—and make sure not to create “charging deserts” in rural areas or low-income urban neighborhoods.

Among governments, auto manufacturers, gas station chains, and manufacturers of charging ports, many initiatives have been started to meet this need. Building charging stations is one thing. Maintaining them is another. Figuring out how much people will pay to charge their cars is still another problem.

How much will it cost to charge an electric car?

Hotels and stores might provide L2 charging stations for free in order to attract business. Of course, customers will pay indirectly for electric car charging somehow or another. Otherwise, L2 stations now charge up to 20¢ per kilowatt hour (kWh). L3 stations, necessary for long-distance travel, typically cost between 30-48¢ per kWh. Both gas prices and electric rates vary widely across the country. Electric rates may also vary according to demand at various times of day.

All this variability makes it very difficult to compare the cost of fueling gasoline and electric vehicles.

Consider how few miles most cars go in a day and that it is possible to charge them overnight when electric rates are the lowest. Electric vehicles might already cost less to fill than gas vehicles. The Pacific Northwest has high gas prices and low electric rates. Electric vehicles cost considerably less to fuel than gas vehicles. The Southeast, on the other hand, has low gas prices. Electric vehicles might still cost less, but the savings are less dramatic. These figures assume the use of L1 and L2 chargers.

People traveling long distances will have to use L3 chargers at least some of the time. These might cost as much as filling a car with gas, or maybe even more.

The problem of range anxiety: how much range is enough?

Range anxiety has kept many drivers from considering electric vehicles. Charging the car at home overnight works adequately most of the time. 95% of all car trips in the US are 30 miles or less. But what about occasional long trips, say, a family vacation? In most of the country, gas stations are easy to find and it only takes a few minutes to fill the tank. We have no similar network of numerous and fast charging stations yet.

Seven major automakers (BMW, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes, and Stellantis) have formed a partnership to build a national network of fast-charging (Le) stations comprising 30,000 plugs or more by 2030.

Fast-charging means that a battery can reach 80% of its capacity sometime between 20 minutes and an hour. Part of that variability has to do with charging technology. Much also depends on the size and capacity of the battery.

Most current electric cars have a range of more than 400 miles. Toyota has announced plans to use solid-state battery technology to build a car with a 900-mile range by 2025.

If home charging provides adequate range for nearly all trips, who will actually need such large batteries? But they’ll be advertised heavily and people will buy them.

Keep in mind that the larger the battery, the heavier they are and the more minerals they will have. And mining those minerals for electric car charging comes with environmental and geopolitical costs. If too many people buy oversized batteries they don’t really need, those costs might not be any better than drilling for oil.

Let’s consider the implications of a small battery, say, only a range of 100 miles, assuming adequate charging infrastructure.

How would a 100-mile range work for a long trip?

I travel from central North Carolina to northwestern Ohio, about 600 miles one way, a couple of times a year. With my current car, I can fill up before I leave home and easily make it to Columbus, Ohio. I fill up there, go to my destination, and fill up in the Columbus area on the way back home. Therefore, I need to stop twice on my round trip to get gas. My previous car got much less gas mileage, and I needed to stop twice in each direction.

If I had an electric car with a 100-mile range, I would have to stop to recharge six times each way, or approximately every hour and a half.

As it is, I probably stop that often for bathroom breaks, meals, or just to get out of the car and stretch. If I could count on ample charging stations along the way, including at restaurants, hotels, shopping malls, and existing gas stations, a battery that size would be more than ample for normal driving. For the occasional long trip, it would not be too much more inconvenient than my current car. After all, it won’t take as long to bring a small battery to full charge as it will to charge one with a 900-mile range.

For people who travel some but not often, it would be nice if it would be possible to have two different batteries to switch at need. That way, there would be no over capacity and relatively little inconvenience. I have no idea if it’s even possible.

How good will electric cars be for the environment?

I started with the question of whether we should be optimistic or worried about electric car charging stations.

We should be optimistic that the infrastructure will grow along with the growth of numbers of electric cars on the road, but there will be problems here and there. We should be optimistic that battery technology will improve at the same time. Emerging battery technology will substitute common and relatively inexpensive minerals for cobalt, manganese, and nickel, and maybe even lithium. We can expect charging equipment to get better, too.

But I, at least, am worried about the American tendency to believe that bigger is better and the human tendency to rush into new ideas without anticipating the consequences. In that case, we will have shed the environmental costs of fossil fuels, which we know, and substituted new environmental costs, which we don’t know yet. And we’ll have unnecessary trouble adjusting.

Sources:

The EV transition explained: charger infrastructure
/ Robert M. Charette, IEEE Spectrum. December 4, 2022
EVs get cheaper. automakers bet big on EV charging & is Toyota building the holy grail of battery vehicles? / Greener Ideal. July 29, 2023
Is it cheaper to refuel your EV battery or gas tank? We did the math in all 50 states / Michael J. Coren, Washington Post. August 8, 2023

The post Electric car charging: should we be optimistic or worried? appeared first on Sustaining Our World.

Contributed by Ellie Gabel

While you might already recycle glass bottles and cardboard boxes, you may not consider scrap metal recycling. Even though taking it to a recycling facility can be very beneficial, many people are unaware they can do so. 

The process of recycling scrap metal differs from your typical recycling process. If you want to recycle scrap metal, make sure there’s a facility in your area that will accept it. You will have to transport your scrap to the facility on your own, as it shouldn’t be included with your curbside recycling for pickup.

What is scrap metal recycling?

Scrap metal recycling basically turns old objects into something new. While it’s similar to the standard recycling process, it only involves materials like aluminum, iron, copper and brass. According to the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, it provides over $116 billion to the economy of the U.S.

How does scrap metal recycling work?

Scrap collection is usually the only part of the process you’ll be involved in — although you may need to do the sorting yourself. Many recycling facilities will vary in what they accept. Make sure to look up the  scrap yards in your area to find out what kind of metals they will take before you bring your collections to them. They may also require a minimum amount of scrap before they accept your collections.

Once you deliver your items to a recycling center, they will ensure that everything is properly sorted before they melt everything down. Then, they refine it and turn it back into solid metal. The exact form varies on what has been ordered from the scrap yard. Scrap metal can be refined into wire, bars, sheets, and more. Manufacturers will receive the finished product to work with as they please.

Remember to go to professionals instead of trying to melt or reuse scrap metal yourself. It’s a much safer option. Consider propane tanks, for example. They’re only recyclable after valve removal, which only an expert can do.

Why should you recycle scrap metal?

There are plenty of reasons you should recycle scrap metal. It can be beneficial to both you and the planet.

1. You can make money

Have you ever exchanged empty pop cans for some change? Scrap recycling is pretty similar, although it’s a bit more in-depth. If you take your materials to the right professional, they’ll give you money in return.

The price varies depending on the type of metal and it can fluctuate over time. For instance, aluminum currently brings in up to $0.50 per pound, while brass can reach up to $2.75 per pound. You can get more for rare or precious metals. You can essentially get paid for your time, making the process worth it.

2. You help manufacturers

Usually, manufacturers have to dig up, transport, melt and refine metal before using it. However, they get to cut that entire process in half when they reuse scrap. It makes production much more affordable and saves them a lot of time.

Plus, the recycling process creates essential work opportunities. In fact, it creates nearly two jobs and contributes almost $9,500 to the national economy for every one thousand tons that are recycled. You can help your local area and even the entire country with enough effort.

3. You save energy

While reuse efforts generally help the environment, scrap recycling has a particularly significant impact because so many people use these materials. For instance, recycling aluminum takes 80% less energy than producing it from scratch. Manufacturers only need to reuse the old stuff rather than extracting, melting and transporting new material. 

On top of saving valuable resources, it’s much better for the environment. Less mining and shipping means fewer greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants. It’s incredibly sustainable. The work you do to recycle scrap metal can make the planet cleaner. 

4. You get more space

One of the best benefits is the free space you end up with. Do you have a rusted car sitting on your lawn or a collection of old cans in your garage? You can take everything from kitchen appliances to bathroom fixtures to a recycling center, meaning you get a ton of extra room on your property. Some scrap metal facilities will even arrange to pick up large objects for you, eliminating the need to rent a trailer or load heavy objects yourself.

5. You reduce pollution

Many metals leak toxic pollutants into the ground and waterways when they sit in landfills. This issue also impacts the average person’s health, considering they can develop cancer when they eat or drink from contaminated sources. Recycling scrap metal keeps it from affecting the planet, keeping the environment and people healthy.

What kinds of metals can you recycle?

Recycling centers split everything into ferrous or non-ferrous groups. The majority of scrap metal belongs to the first category. According to the Bureau of International Recycling, facilities have processed between 67 and 73 million metric tons of ferrous material from 2017 to 2021. While non-ferrous metals aren’t as common, they’re more valuable.

Here are some of the scrap metals you can recycle:

• Brass: Brass is a heavy yellow metal. You’ll find it most often in light or bathroom fixtures.
• Steel: Steel is usually silver but may look brown or red because of rust. It’s in a ton of items, so people recycle it often. In fact, the U.S. processed over 50 million metric tons in 2019 alone. 
• Copper: Copper is one of the more valuable scrap metals. It’s a shiny reddish-orange color. You’ll usually find it in air conditioning units, electronics or under the insulation in electrical wires.
• Aluminum: Aluminum is lightweight and bright silver. You can find it in soda cans, food containers and windows. Saving up aluminum cans for a couple years is one of the easiest ways for the average person to recycle scrap metal.
• Cast iron: Cast iron is heavy, dark and brittle. Old pans are the most standard source in most homes.
• Precious metals: Although precious metals aren’t standard, you can usually find some in old jewelry or decorations. You’ll likely have gold or silver. They’ll usually fetch a high price.

You can test your materials if you don’t know what you have. For instance, magnets stick to all ferrous metalsbecause of their iron, so you could put one on your scrap and see if it stays. Also, you can look at its color, strength and weight to determine what it might be.

You may also have things that contain multiple types of metal. For example, electronics count as scrap metal since they often have various amounts of steel, aluminum or copper. You can always take your items to a testing center to figure out what they are.

As I mentioned, it’s very easy to recycle aluminum cans and earn a bit of cash for it. It’s not an immediate payout, but if you go through a lot of cans, consider saving them up for a few years and turning them in at a local scrap recycling center. Depending on the amount and the market price, you could collect a pretty substantial payout! I grew up doing this with my family and continue to recycle my cans in this manner today.

Recycling scrap metal helps you and the planet

Recycling scrap metal can make you money, help the local environment and improve your health. You don’t even have to go out of your way to collect things — you can simply take in what you already have lying around.

Author Bio: Ellie Gabel is a writer living in Raleigh, NC. She writes about environmental issues and how advancements in green technology are helping the planet. She also works as an associate editor for Revolutionized.

The post Why you should be recycling scrap metal appeared first on Sustaining Our World.

Electric vehicles accounted for 10% of vehicle sales worldwide in 2022. By 2030, they will likely account for 30%. Sometime before 2040, electric cars will outsell gas cars.  We’re going to need a lot more electric car batteries, but they present some issues.

The European Union and some states in the US have enacted laws that ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars starting in 2035. While electric vehicles don’t emit greenhouse gases, they are not free from their own environmental concerns. We need to be planning now how to minimize them. 

Making batteries requires mining and processing metals. Mining always has a bad environmental impact. Both mining and processing also have social and geopolitical implications that we must keep in mind. The typical American attitude that bigger is better can only aggravate these problems.

Basic facts about electric car batteries

Batteries in general comprise a negative pole (anode) and a positive pole (cathode) separated by an electrolyte. During use, current flows from the anode through the electrolyte to the cathode. Recharging a battery reverses the flow. 

Most lithium-ion car batteries use a liquid electrolyte, a graphite anode and a metal cathode. Excluding steel and aluminum, electric vehicles require six times as much mineral content by weight as gasoline vehicles. The issues with electric cars chiefly concern the batteries. These minerals are not renewable resources. Mining and processing them cause harm to the environment and the health of people who work with them. 

One of the most common versions of lithium-ion car batteries uses a nickel/manganese/cobalt cathode. Five metals account for nearly half their weight:

• Lithium (3.2%)
• Cobalt (4.3%)
• Manganese (5.4%)
• Nickel (15.7%)
• Aluminum (18.9%)

The aluminum in the battery is in addition to the aluminum in the car’s frame and body. 

Environmental and geopolitical electric car battery issues 

Poor countries have some of the most productive mines and the largest proven reserves of some of these metals. They have no monopoly. China and Australia, for example, are leading sources of lithium. But poor countries can’t adequately regulate the mines, which often exploit workers, pollute the environment, and endanger the health and livelihood of the nearby population.

Wherever metals come from, China controls nearly all of the processing infrastructure for manganese and more than half for all the other metals except nickel. 

Sales of electric vehicles are expected to surpass sales of gasoline and diesel vehicles by 2040. Manufacturers achieve greater range by supplying vehicles with larger batteries. And let us not forget that the energy storage batteries now used to make wind and solar energy viable depend on the same metals. Cell phones and other electronic gadgets also run on lithium-ion batteries.

Meeting increased demand will require more land devoted to mining, land that most likely will displace agricultural land or forests. Geopolitical and diplomatic consequences are more difficult to predict, but China is no friend of Western nations, where demand for batteries is so strong. 

Is it possible to recycle lithium-ion batteries? Sort of. As with nearly everything else, technology for recycling and participation rates lag behind manufacturing and sales. So far, electric car battery recycling is hardly economically viable, although research continues to explore solutions. 

Alternatives to today’s batteries

Manufacturers have made strides in finding alternatives to the standard lithium-ion car batteries. They are also looking for ways to improve lithium-ion batteries, mostly by exploring alternatives to the nickel/manganese/cobalt cathode. The lithium iron phosphate battery looks promising. Using something else besides graphite for the anode could reduce weight, increase energy density, and make charging faster. So far, silicon anodes have not worked adequately, but Mercedes-Benz hopes to start using them in 2025.

Some companies are working on sodium-ion batteries. Lithium (atomic weight 3) is the lightest of all solid elements. Sodium (atomic weight 11) is the third lightest. Although heavier, sodium has the advantage of being less expensive and easier to work with. So far, it is not clear that sodium-ion batteries can compete with lithium-ion for range and charging time in car batteries. They can more likely displace lithium for grid-storage batteries, which would at least keep lithium prices from rising as fast.

Solid-state batteries replace the liquid electrolyte with ceramics or other solids. Michael Farraday invented them in the 1830s, but until recently, no one figured out how to make them work well enough to be practical. Quantumscape, which went public in 2020, has promised to supply Volkswagen with solid-state car batteries by 2025. 

The need for restraint

Issues with electric car batteries include their size. How big is big enough and how can we keep from squandering resources?

The average American driver drives only 37 miles a day. Anyone who lives in a single-family dwelling can recharge an electric car overnight in their own garage. Manufacturers are promising electric cars with a range of hundreds of miles. To do so will require very large batteries, which, in turn, will require a lot of the various metals. Most of the time, drivers won’t need nearly that much capacity.  

Small batteries that can be recharged quickly without major power usage are more practical and better for the environment.

Of course, the average American driver probably plans to make longer road trips from time to time. These trips will probably comprise less than 5% of their annual milage. For these trips, and only for these trips, they will need larger batteries than normal. Are any automotive designers even thinking about this issue?

Sources:

The obsession with EV range is all wrong / Shannon Osaka, Washington Post. July 7, 2023 
The underbelly of electric vehicles / Aaron Steckelberg et al., Washington Post. April 27, 2023 
What’s next for batteries / Casey Crownhart, MIT Technology Review. January 4, 2023

The post Electric car batteries: what are some problems to solve? appeared first on Sustaining Our World.

Contributed by Carolyn Hart

Owning a home is a considerable investment. You must be conscious of all related expenses, such as a mortgage, insurance, upkeep and maintenance, and utility bills. While there’s not much you can do to reduce some of those costs, you can take steps to decrease your electric bill. Residential solar energy does just that.

What are the reasons to install solar panels?

Whether you’re a homeowner or a small business owner, it’s both essential and easy to reduce your carbon footprint through renewable energy sources. Being green and sustainable isn’t just for the big guys, and every little change helps the planet. On the residential side, BUILD magazine notes that residential solar energy systems have a number of benefits. they

• decrease your electric bill: Solar panels can provide some of your home’s electricity, so you don’t have to rely solely on the local power company. Your consumption of electricity and the capacity of your solar system determines how much you can save. You may even be able to sell some of the energy your solar panels collect to electric companies in your area, which can help offset the cost of installing your system.
• increase your home’s value: Solar systems can be considered upgrades and add significant value to your home.
• feature low maintenance: Solar panels do not need much care. While you should clean them regularly, it can be years before other maintenance is necessary.
• have less environmental impact: Traditional power sources such as coal and gas are harmful to the environment. Solar energy is a renewable, sustainable resource that is much better for the atmosphere and our planet.
• are eligible for financial incentives: In the United States, there are tax credits for installing residential solar energy systems. The Federal Housing Authority’s Energy Efficient Mortgage program can incorporate the cost of the system into your mortgage, so you don’t have to finance it separately.
• offer increased home appraisal: Although it’s not an environmental reason, adding solar panels can increase the value of your home. Check out the recent sale prices of homes in your area with solar to see if they exceeded the median sale price.

In addition, residential solar energy alters the environmental impact of solar energy overall. Large-scale solar farms take up too much land. Siting solar panels on marginal land helps take the pressure off. Using space on the nations roofs reduces the need for utilities to use land for solar installations.

Will solar panels work for your home?

Solar energy can work in most areas, even remote locations. However, Greentumble points out that some factors affect your home’s compatibility with solar panels. If the pitch of your roof is too steep, solar panels will probably not work for you. The system would be difficult to install, and the roof may not receive enough sun.

Asphalt shingles, metal roofing, and some types of roofing tiles work well with a solar installation. Old roofs may need to be replaced before installing solar panels. Also, solar panels should face the south to be most effective, so if your roof faces a different direction, enough sunlight may not hit the panels. Finally, if there is too much shade close to the home, a solar energy system might not be beneficial.

The steps involved in a residential solar panel installation

You’ll want to know what the process entails if you are interested in installing solar panels on your home:

1. Inspection: a qualified technician comes to your home to assess your home’s compatibility with solar energy systems and determines your energy needs. You will be able to approve the proposed design before proceeding. You might want to conduct an energy audit before proceeding so you know how much energy you use and how many panels you will need if you convert to solar.
2. Permits: your installer will apply for permits to add the solar system to your home and, if applicable, ask for approval from your homeowner’s association.
3. Installing your panels: while it’s possible to install solar panels yourself, it is best to hire a professional. The actual installation process generally doesn’t take long.

Find the right solution for your home

These days, investing in sustainable energy isn’t just good for the environment; it also makes good business sense. If you are considering a residential solar energy system for your home, get in touch with professionals. They can guide you through your home’s eligibility for installing solar panels and help you get the financial benefits you’re entitled to.

About the author:

Carolyn Hart has been a financial planner for nearly four decades. She has dedicated her career to helping her clients achieve financial health by assisting them in setting budgets, saving for the future, and pursuing investment opportunities. Her site, CarolynKnowsMoney, is her passion project to reach readers near and far to find financial stability. When she’s not working, you’ll probably find her in the kitchen baking up a storm

The post Shining light on residential solar energy appeared first on Sustaining Our World.

You can’t put plastic bags out to the curb for recycling. The plastic bag recycling process starts when you take your bags and other films to a store.

You know that, of course. You probably also know that the plastic bag recycling system is broken. After all, not many bags actually go through it to become new products. As it turns out, the low recycling rate isn’t the only problem plaguing plastic bag recycling. Plastic bags are hard to recycle.

But before exploring the plastic bag recycling process and why it doesn’t work, we need to understand that it’s supposed to handle a lot more than plastic shopping bags:

• Bread and bun packages
• Bags of noodles, rice, or other dry products
• Produce bags
• Wrappings for paper towels, toilet paper, water bottles, etc.
• Plastic liners in cereal or cracker boxes
• Food storage bags (zipable or not), so long as they are clean and dry
• Bags used to protect newspapers, dry cleaning, etc.
• Plastic shipping envelopes and packaging such as bubble wrap or air pillows—deflate them and remove all labeling.

Unfortunately, the plastics recycling industry recommends against recycling bags that contained frozen foods or chopped salads. They are made from layers of different kinds of plastic.

A brief overview of recycling plastic

My photo

In the 1950s, public service announcements by Keep America Beautiful began to call the attention of the public to the problem of litter. Among others was portrayal of a plastic bottle that wanted to be recycled.

As it turns out, Coca Cola and other large beverage companies paid for Keep America Beautiful at the same time they lobbied to oppose legislation intended to regulate or outlaw non-refillable bottles.

Plastics recycling started in earnest in about 1990, when the plastics, oil, and natural gas industries started an advertising campaign that touted the economic value of used plastic bottles. The campaign focused on bottles, not plastic in general, and certainly not plastic bags. Industry knew at the time that not all plastic waste had any value and that recycling it wasn’t economically viable.

Actually, the plastics industry didn’t even especially want plastics recycling to succeed. After all, using recycled plastic to make new products means that much less virgin plastic that manufacturers can sell.

Beginning with Keep America Beautiful, industry efforts to boost plastic recycling amount to greenwashing. They also falsely leave the impression that the public, and not industry, bears the primary responsibility for making it work.

Recent decades have seen the rise of a concept called extended producer responsibility. It’s a legal concept that requires manufacturers to consider the entire life cycle of a product in designing it. Among other requirements, they become responsible for collecting and recycling packaging.

Extended producer responsibility has certain advantages for manufacturers. For one thing, it would help them meet their sustainability goals by guaranteeing an adequate supply of waste to recycle and reuse.

The way plastic bag recycling works—in principle

Recycling receptacles at a grocery store, two for plastic films and one for paper / My photo

Americans use about 7.5 million tons of various plastic films every year. Residences receive about two thirds of that amount. The rest is used commercially, such as the film that covers pallets of goods that stores receive.

Because plastic bags are hard to recycle, the plastic bag recycling process is much different from the familiar curbside recycling.

A few counties have drop-off sites for plastic bags and other films, but for most Americans, the best option is to take them to a store that has plastic film recycling containers. It might not be obvious where to find the containers. The retail industry supplies the containers but doesn’t expend much effort on advertising them.

The American Chemistry Council, which represents plastic manufacturers, promotes plastic bag recycling. It has spearheaded the placement of plastic bag recycling containers at stores. To that end, it sponsors nearly 18,000 drop-off locations at stores all across the country. Its avowed purpose is to make plastic bag recycling easy and convenient for consumers.

Your part in the plastic bag recycling process

Collect all the various recyclable plastic bags and films you accumulate. From time to time, take your accumulation to one of those drop-off locations.

Put only clean plastic films in recycling. If you have used a plastic bag for food storage, wash all the residue out. Otherwise, you will contaminate the entire batch. So when you wash dishes by hand, wash out the bags at the same time. Make sure that no greasy residue remains. Let them dry before setting them aside for recycling. If you can’t get it clean, put it in the trash.

Even if you can get them clean, see if you can reuse them instead of recycling them. For example, I cook eight hamburgers at a time, eat one, and freeze the rest in a plastic freezer bag. I can wash and reuse the same bag over and over for cooked food until it wears out. You can also reuse plastic bags to store small non-food items such as craft supplies, game pieces, screws, or nails.

But here’s another idea that is less well known: Terracycle aims to recycle everything and offers several means for the public to participate. You can purchase a box from them, fill it with any kind of plastic packaging, and then mail it back. In the UK, ReFactory offers a similar service, but with separate boxes for films, straws, office supplies, and other packaging.

Industry’s part in the plastic bag recycling process

My photo

The store combines that the plastic collects from customers with what it receives on the pallets and sends it back to its distribution center. But first, a store employee ought to go through the recycling containers to sort out all the wrong items customers have put in them.

That is, the store bears some cost for providing the recycling service. It usually receives no reimbursement.

Trex, a Virginia-based company that makes composite lumber, receives most of the waste plastic film. I haven’t found a definitive statement of who pays the shipping costs or how much Trex pays for it.

Making composite lumber from waste plastic film is considered downcycling. Processes exist for converting the films to pellets that can be used to make new films. Other processes exist for converting the films into their constituent monomers and repolymerizing them. So far, only a few companies use those processes.

What really happens to too much “recycled” plastic films

ABC News tested the plastic bag recycling process by placing 46 trackers in bundles of plastic bags dropped off at Walmart and Target stores in ten different states.  They super glued the trackers inside plastic bags and put them in multiple layers of bags.

Whenever the trackers went close to a suitable mobile or digital device, they pinged. The network and the stations it worked with monitored the location of each tracker several times a day.

• A tracker placed at a Target in Kingston, New York in December 2022 was one of the first to move. A week later, it turned up in a landfill in Waterloo, New York.
• By May 2023, half of the trackers were traced either to landfills or incinerators. Seven more stopped pinging at transfer stations that do not sort out plastic bags for recycling.
• After several months, six trackers apparently never left the stores where they were deposited.
• Three more eventually pinged at locations in India and Malaysia.
• Only four out of 46 trackers ended up in American facilities for recycling plastic bags.

It appears that ABC placed its trackers only at those two huge chains. Unless further investigation shows otherwise, it would be a mistake to take it as meaning that all drop-off locations mishandle plastic films the same way. If you have been taking plastic films to Walmart or Target, it would be better to take them somewhere else than to abandon plastic bag recycling altogether.

Why the plastic bag recycling system is broken

InfinityGivingCircle via Flickr

In principle, it is possible to recycle a wide variety of plastics. In practice, only two kinds get recycled with any regularity: PET, which is used for water bottles, and HDPE, which is used for milk jugs. Once these products get put out for recycling, the industry recycles 100% of them. But the recycling rate is only about 15-30% for PET and less than that for HDPE jugs.

Unfortunately, if 100% of these items entered the recycling stream, the industry couldn’t handle it all. It only has the capacity to process about 21% of PET bottles and about 10% of HDPE jugs. It can handle less than 5% of plastic bags and films and even less than of such things as coffee pods, plastic cutlery, ice cream tubs, or DVD cases.

According to a Greenpeace survey of 375 American recycling facilities, all of them accept PET and HDPE (marked with numbers 1 and 2). Half accept polypropylene (PP, no. 5) and only a tenth of them accept plastic clamshells or cups.

Polystyrene (no. 6) can go through sorting equipment at recycling facilities only if it hasn’t been expanded into foam. The foam will only break up into little pieces and contaminate everything else. Plastic bags and films (no. 4) can’t go through the equipment at all. It gets tangled in the rotating parts and causes the line to shut down until someone cleans it out. At worst, it can damage components of the equipment.

Recycling plastic is practically impossible. For one thing, it is hard to collect. So far, only packaging enters the recycling stream. What is anyone supposed to do with a broken plastic chair, discarded polyester clothing, or any of dozens of other plastic products?

Once collected in the typical single-stream recycling program, plastic is difficult to sort. And except for limited forms of PET, HDPE, and PP, there is little market for it. In principle, some manufacture could use other plastic wastes, but hardly any actually do, and they are mostly small startups.

Plastics industry innovations that can help—just not enough

The Dow Chemical Company has become a leader in corporate sustainability. It has initiated a number of plastics recycling partnerships all over the world to recycling types of plastic conventional recycling technology can’t handle. Dow will buy most of the output of these partners.

It has even established partnerships in Kenya that pay trash pickers for plastics that formerly had no resale value and so remained on the streets. What is hasn’t done is start to look for ways not to manufacture with plastic at all.

Because it is evident that the current system isn’t working, the American Chemistry Council is exploring ways to make curbside recycling work. It claims its goal is to make all the plastic packaging it manufactures recyclable.

But the council has also been active in discouraging bag bans or any other attempt to reduce the amount of plastic film manufactured every year. It has lobbied federal, state, and local governments to challenge restrictions on plastic. It has also teamed up with lobbyists from big oil to discourage an international treaty from including restrictions on producing plastic. Plastic bags are hard to recycle not only despite industry efforts but because of industry lobbying.

Technological breakthroughs that may or may not become practical

Plastic shopping bags / Wikimedia Commons

Advanced plastic recycling technologies exist that use enzymes produced by bacteria, high heat, or various chemicals that change its molecular structure. Depolymerization breaks down polymers into their constituent monomers, which can be used instead of oil to make new plastics. Pyrolysis, uses high heat in the absence of air to produce saleable products.

Pyrolysis is a proven technology and several commercial companies are using it. Otherwise, these techniques mostly remain at the experimental stage. The ones proven to work technologically either haven’t been scaled up for commercial production or are currently too expensive to make economic sense.

All successful recent technologies were once nothing more than ideas tested in a lab somewhere. All had to prove themselves in the marketplace before they succeeded. Success required a lot of time and a lot of money. And they succeeded where many other ideas failed for one reason or another.

Some advanced plastic bag recycling processes will probably succeed. Most will probably not. Even if they all become viable, they cannot fix a broken system. We can’t recycle our way out of the glut of waste plastic. The plastic industry makes too much plastic, and it has no intention of scaling back its production.

Related posts:

Beyond water bottles and milk jugs: what other plastics get recycled? 
Can plastic-eating bacteria boost recycling?
Can plastic-eating bacteria in cows’ stomachs help plastic recycling?
The cost of convenience in careless recycling
Innovations in plastic recycling technology
Is it possible to fix plastic recycling problems?
Two new recycling technologies turn waste into resources
What happens to recycled plastic bags?

Sources:

Can you recycle Ziplock bags? get your plastic bag disposal on lock / Sustainable Jungle. February 23, 2023
Plastic bags / Cuyahoga County Solid Waste District
We put dozens of trackers in plastic bags for recycling. Many were trashed / Matt Gutman et al., ABC News. May 23, 2023
What happens to the plastic bags we recycle at grocery stores?/ Eric Roper, Star Tribune. May 26, 2023
Why most plastic isn’t getting recycled / Daniel de Visé, The Hill. November 1, 2022

The post The plastic bag recycling process: why the system is broken appeared first on Sustaining Our World.

Global distribution of blue carbon habitats: seagrasses, tidal marshes, and mangroves / Wikipedia Commons 

Blue carbon is a fairly recent term. It means carbon associated with coastal and marine ecosystems.  It has long had implications for climate change. Unfortunately, we’re rapidly losing these ecosystems.

Achieving net zero emissions of greenhouse gases does not require that we stop emitting carbon entirely. We can offset it by removing an equal amount of carbon from the atmosphere. Technology offers carbon capture and storage.

Nature also removes carbon from the atmosphere. Forests, grasslands, and bodies of water that remove and store carbon are known as carbon sinks. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recognized the importance of blue carbon only in 2013. Since then, it has become an important part of environmental protection and mitigation of climate change. The nations of the world with ocean coasts have started to devise action plans to promote understanding of blue carbon. In the U.S., both federal and state governments have taken steps.

The Waquoit Bay Research Reserve in Massachusetts developed a tool for marketing blue carbon projects as carbon offsets in coastal wetlands. Corporations can finance blue carbon projects through purchasing offsets. It’s better for them to reduce emissions, but offsetting can be a useful strategy while they do so.

The Reserve also found that restoring tidal flows to damaged marshes reduces methane emissions. Restoring tidal flows from a single river, the Herring River, can prevent 300,000 tons carbon dioxide emissions over 40 years.

The U.S. was the first nation to include blue carbon in its inventory of greenhouse gas emissions. It is based on 30 years of measurement data by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Carbon sinks vs carbon sources

Salt marsh at Zeke’s Island Coastal Reserve, North Carolina / NC Wetlands via Flickr

Plants make sugars for their nourishment through photosynthesis, which requires sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide. Plants extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and return oxygen as a waste product. On the other hand, animals extract oxygen from the atmosphere and return carbon dioxide as a waste product.

Of course, the natural balance of carbon dioxide and oxygen depends on more than simply breathing. Leaving aside human activity for a while, some natural processes release more carbon dioxide than they absorb. They are called carbon sources and include fires and volcanic eruptions. Carbon sinks, on the other hand, absorb more carbon than they release.

On land, forests and grasslands serve as carbon sinks. Forests store carbon in the trees and other plants. Grasslands store carbon mainly in the grass roots and soil. When a tree dies and crashes to the ground, the process of rotting adds some of its carbon back into the atmosphere. Insects consume it, for example. As animals, they inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.

A forest fire turns the forest from a carbon sink to a carbon source by releasing all the carbon that had been stored in the trees. Likewise, an earthquake, tornado, or anything that disturbs the soil releases the carbon stored there.

Of course, human activity from burning anything to plowing the ground for agriculture or building projects turns carbon sinks into carbon sources more drastically than any natural processes. We must restore forests and grasslands and reduce emissions from plowing as part of any successful program to restore the natural balance.

What is blue carbon and why does it matter?

Kelp forest at Anacapa Island, California / Dana Roeber Murry via Flickr

In fact, coastal and marine ecosystems store more carbon and store it more efficiently than land-based ecosystems. That means that disturbing them releases more carbon into the atmosphere than disturbing land ecosystems.

The open ocean has vast potential to store carbon. Anything that dies in the ocean falls to the bottom and decomposes. The top few feet of sediment at the bottom of the sea stores vast amounts of carbon It will stay there forever unless something such as dredging or drilling for oil releases it.

So far, however, we have fewer established strategies for managing the open ocean than coastal ecosystems. Coastal ecosystems comprise only a few hundred thousand square miles scattered all over the world, but they remove carbon ten times faster than terrestrial forests and grasslands and store four times as much.

Coastal ecosystems store carbon both in the plants and the sediment. Not only that, but the tide also captures organic matter from land the drags it back into the ocean, where it sinks into the sediment.

Although coastal wetlands occupy less than 2% of the ocean, their sediments contain about half of all the ocean’s store of carbon. Besides serving as a carbon sink, coastal wetlands protect shorelines from the worst ravages of severe storms. They slow the action of waves, absorb excess floodwaters, and reduce the acidification that threatens marine life. They also provide recreational opportunities for humans and support local economies.

Coastal wetlands are among the most threatened of ecosystems. Over the past 50 years or so, their total area has decreased by more than a third. Destruction of these wetlands’ releases about 450 million metric tons of the carbon dioxide that they would otherwise store indefinitely. That figure amounts to the carbon emissions of more than 97 million cars.

Blue carbon refers to several different coastal and marine ecosystems: mangrove forests, tidal marshes (also known as salt marshes), kelp forests, and seagrass meadows.

Mangrove forests

Mangrove forest, showing the roots / Jonathan Wilkins via Wikimedia Commons

A mangrove is a tree or shrub that grows where the land and ocean meet. It thrives where other trees would die: in loose, wet soil where the water is salty and they are submerged by high tides.

Mangrove forests are a type of tropical forest and therefore not found in all coastal waters. Their rate of carbon sequestration is about two to four times greater than strictly land-based tropical forests.

They serve as buffers to protect against coastal flooding. They serve as habitat for numerous species of marine life and sequester more than a ton of carbon per acre every year.

Between 30-50% of the mangrove forests that existed 50 years ago have been lost, and losses continue at a rate of about 1-2% every year. Unsustainable coastal development, including cutting down mangrove forests to build aquaculture ponds, accounts for much of this deforestation.

Salt marshes

Unlike mangrove forests, salt marshes exist along every continent except Antarctica and grow from the tropics to sub-arctic areas—most extensively in temperate waters.

But like mangrove forests, they occupy habitats in zones between sea and land. They are underwater or exposed to the atmosphere depending on the tides.

Salt marshes can sequester almost a ton of carbon per acre at a rate of two to four times greater than tropical forests on land. They can absorb as much as a million and a half gallons of floodwater. More than 75% of the species important to U.S. fisheries depend on salt marshes for food, shelter, and raising their young.

The wet soil in tidal marshes is several meters deep. The soil, rather than the plants, holds almost all of their carbon.

These marshes maintain coastal water quality by filtering pollution that runs off from land. Excess pollution can kill them, however. Tidal marshes absorb some of the energy from hurricanes and other storms. Their loss, therefore, intensifies storm damage. Both tidal and freshwater marshes disappear at a rate of 1-2% annually.

Kelp forests and seagrass meadows

Seagrass meadow, Florida Keys / Heather Dine via Flickr

Kelp comprises three kinds of algae: green, red, and brown. In kelp forests, the green algae usually grow closer to the surface, with red algae below them and brown algae even lower. Sea grasses are plants rooted in the ocean sediments. Kelp forests occur only in temperate areas, but sea grasses grow anywhere except polar regions.

Both kelp forests and seagrass meadows occupy open water, farther from shore than mangrove forests or salt marshes.

That is, they are completely submerged, but like salt marshes, the sea grasses grow in soil several meters deep. They account for only 0.2% of worldwide ocean territory but sequester about 10% of oceanic carbon. Being the smallest of the coastal ecosystems, they are among the world’s most threatened. Major threats include dredging and other poor land use practices.

Sea grasses and kelp provide food, shelter, and nursery facilities for larger species of fish. Each acre of sea grasses sequesters more than half a ton of carbon per acre every year. While that figure doesn’t match the carbon sequestration of the salt marshes or mangrove forests, sea grasses store about 10% of all everything the oceans store.

Restoring coastal and marine ecosystems, like restoring forests and grasslands, improves nature’s ability to capture and store carbon. We still have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, though. Blue carbon is not some kind of magic that will let us continue our wasteful ways. But it is one of a number of important tools for combatting climate change.

Sources:

About blue carbon / The Blue Carbon Initiative
Blue carbon fast facts / National Ocean Service
Blue carbon is a natural climate solution with big potential / Zayna Syed, Popular Science. April 17, 2023
Coastal ‘blue carbon’: an important tool for combating climate change / PEW Charitable Trusts. October 1, 2021

The post Endangered blue carbon: nature’s most efficient carbon sink appeared first on Sustaining Our World.