Researchers hope to harness energy from office windows
A project from the Center for Architecture Science and Ecology would use office windows as solar power generators by focusing the sun’s rays.
The “integrated concentrating dynamic solar facade” from CASE would capture light on building exteriors with grids of clear pyramids on windows.
A prototype opened this week at the Syracuse, N.Y., headquarters of the Syracuse Center of Excellence in Environmental and Energy Systems, as part of a collaboration among CASE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and architecture firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. The system was already tested on a rooftop at RPI.
The project would place small, clear pyramids on windows with a lens to focus sunlight on a solar cell. The pyramids would rotate to follow the sun, while pumped water would cool the solar cells. The pyramids would also be able to deflect or diffuse the sunlight, eliminating glare inside the office. The system combines the ideas of concentrating solar energy and putting solar cells on buildings in a way that also tackles problems with building cooling, heat and lighting.
Harvard study says carbon and fuel taxes are needed to reduce vehicle emissions
Increasing the cost of driving will be necessary to achieve greenhouse gas reductions sought by the government, according to an upcoming policy brief from Harvard University. In fact, reducing emissions from transportation will remain hard to do even with the most radical policies proposed by the Obama administration.
The policies will not make a dent in the reducing imports of foreign oil, either, because Americans will continue to drive more and increase vehicle miles traveled up to 2030, according to the researchers from Harvard’s Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group.
Keeping fuel prices low is counterintuitive to the stated emission reduction goals, and a strong gasoline and diesel tax is necessary to reduce fossil fuel consumption and reduce emissions, states the report.
“The most effective policy for reducing CO2 emissions and oil imports from transportation is to spur the development and sale of more efficient vehicles with strict efficiency standards while increasing the cost of driving with strong fuel taxes,” states the report.
High fuel taxes or high carbon prices will not bring the economy to a halt, the study asserts. The gross domestic product growth would reach 2.1 to 3.7 percent a year. “The economy is still going to grow even with aggressive climate change policy scenarios,” said Ross Morrow, a co-author of the study and a professor of mechanical engineering at Iowa State University.
Mercedes to double investment in electric car technology
Mercedes-Benz will nearly double its investment in batteries and fuel-saving engines as part of an effort to offer electric vehicles.
The Daimler AG luxury car unit will spend $1.4 billion in each of the next two years to develop electric auto technology, according to Daimler development chief Thomas Weber. The company spent just $769 million annually for the past three years.
In an interview at the Geneva Auto Show, Weber said the company was working on batteries that could last at least 10 years and handle driving in extreme conditions. The company also announced this week that it will develop electric cars for China with BYD Co. and that Daimler will produce lithium-ion batteries at a new factory by 2012.
“Mercedes wants to be there first,” said Weber. “We’re attacking; we want to be on the top position and can’t wait until someone delivers a commodity.”
The move comes as BMW, the luxury car leader, announced plans to debut an electric-powered vehicle by 2015. Mercedes’ approach differs because it is working on developing batteries rather than engines. Daimler says as cars become more electrified, batteries will be a more important component. Daimler could also supply batteries to other carmakers, according to Chief Environmental Officer Herbert Kohler
Shareholder Climate Resolutions Up 40%
U.S. investor groups have filed 95 global warming shareholder resolutions with public corporations, a 40 percent increase over last year, according to a press release from the Investor Network on Climate Risk.
The resolutions, lodged with 82 U.S. and Canadian companies, seek a range of concessions, from improved sustainability reporting to energy efficiency efforts.
The Investor Network on Climate Risk is backed by investor group Ceres. In all, the network of 80 institutional investors manages $8 trillion in assets.
“As the SEC recently affirmed with its disclosure guidance, climate change presents clear material risks and opportunities for U.S. businesses – and investors have a right to know which companies are well prepared and which are not,” said Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres.
“We want our companies to closely look at the impact climate change legislation and regulation have on them, to realistically assess those risks, and to consider the indirect consequences of climate change-driven regulation and business trends on their activities,” said Jack Ehnes, CEO of CalSTRS, which manages $131 billion dollars in assets.
So far this year, the investors have been able to convince enough companies to make changes that 28 shareholder resolutions have been withdrawn, according to the release.
Among the resolutions, CalSTRS, a public pension fund, filed a resolution with ConocoPhillips, protesting its oil sands operations.
A similar resolution over oil sands processing was filed by Green Century Capital Management against ExxonMobil.
Climate scientists plot to fight back at skeptics
Undaunted by a rash of scandals over the science underpinning climate change, top climate researchers are plotting to respond with what one scientist involved said needs to be “an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach” to gut the credibility of skeptics.
In private e-mails obtained by The Washington Times, climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of “being treated like political pawns” and need to fight back in kind. Their strategy includes forming a nonprofit group to organize researchers and use their donations to challenge critics by running a back-page ad in the New York Times.
“Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules,” Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails.
Some scientists question the tactic and say they should focus instead on perfecting their science, but the researchers who are organizing the effort say the political battle is eroding confidence in their work.
“This was an outpouring of angry frustration on the part of normally very staid scientists who said, ‘God, can’t we have a civil dialogue here and discuss the truth without spinning everything,’” said Stephen H. Schneider, a Stanford professor and senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment who was part of the e-mail discussion but wants the scientists to take a slightly different approach.
China May Start Its First City-Wide Carbon Cap-and-Trade System
China may start its first city-wide carbon cap-and-trade system by June as the world’s biggest polluter seeks to rein in emissions, a project adviser said.
The northeast port city of Tianjin plans to impose a mandatory limit on energy used to heat buildings in the first half of this year, John Shi, chief executive officer of the carbon credit trader Arreon Carbon U.K. Ltd., said in an interview. Property managers able to reduce energy use to below the limit will earn credits they can then sell, he said.
“Pursuing energy efficiency has truly risen to the top of the agenda for local governments,” Shi said yesterday from his office in Beijing. The Tianjin plan is “a way to mobilize capital and mobilize technology.”
China has pledged to reduce its carbon-dioxide output per unit of gross domestic product by 40 percent to 45 percent by 2020 compared with 2005 levels. Premier Wen Jiabao in January called pollution in the nation “grim” and said the government will strictly limit emissions from coal-powered generators, cement and steel producers.
“The political environment last year wasn’t as ripe as it is this year,” Shi said, referring to the targets for emissions cuts announced in November.
The Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, the top advisory body to the nation’s parliament, this week proposed additional measures to cut carbon emissions. Premier Wen will today address the opening session of the parliament’s annual meeting in Beijing and deliver what amounts to China’s State of the Union speech.
In former swamplands teeming with otters and wild hogs, one of the nation’s biggest utilities is running an experiment in the future of renewable power.
Across 500 acres north of West Palm Beach, the FPL Group utility is assembling a life-size Erector Set of 190,000 shimmering mirrors and thousands of steel pylons that stretch as far as the eye can see. When it is completed by the end of the year, this vast project will be the world’s second-largest solar plant.
But that is not its real novelty. The solar array is being grafted onto the back of the nation’s largest fossil-fuel power plant, fired by natural gas. It is an experiment in whether conventional power generation can be married with renewable power in a way that lowers costs and spares the environment.
This project is among a handful of innovative hybrid designs meant to use the sun’s power as an adjunct to coal or gas in producing electricity. While other solar projects already use small gas-fired turbines to provide backup power for cloudy days or at night, this is the first time that a conventional plant is being retrofitted with the latest solar technology on such an industrial scale.
The project’s advantages are obvious: electricity generated from the sun will allow FPL to cut natural gas use and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It will provide extra power when it is most needed: when the summer sun is shining, Floridians are cranking up their air-conditioning and electricity demand is at its highest.
The plant also serves as a real-life test on how to reduce the cost of solar power, which remains much more expensive than most other forms of electrical generation. FPL Group, the parent company of Florida Power and Light, expects to cut costs by about 20 percent compared with a stand-alone solar facility, since it does not have to build a new steam turbine or new high-power transmission lines.
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
“A project from the Center for Architecture Science and Ecology would use office windows as solar power generators by focusing the sun’s rays.”
While this is very interesting, it’s actually much easier to do than that. NREL has done studies that show windows designed to R-5 are energy neutral – the light and heat that come in the window offsets the energy that goes out, if the building is designed properly to take advantage of it. Above R-5, they are energy positive if the building is designed properly. There are many companies that already make windows this good, such a s Serious Materials.
I know the sexy high-tech solutions always make more interesting news, but there is lot of lower-hanging fruit here…
[JR: Yes, efficiency should be job #1, 2, and 3.]
Message to Harvard and to Professor William George
Harvard scientists are among the many leading scientists who are all concerned about the immense problem of climate change. I have immense respect for them.
Harvard is one of the world’s leading universities, and I have immense respect for it.
(Even Bob Dylan himself mentions Harvard on his very first album.)
Harvard economists correctly understand that markets don’t react to things, consider them, or address them much, if those things have no cost or price or volume implication — e.g., if there is no economic cost associated with pouring CO2 into the air, companies will not care much about the matter, and the purchase decisions of consumers won’t be influenced sufficiently to address the climate change problem.
Harvard’s first female leader, Dr. Drew Gilpin Faust, wisely and necessarily said, “It is urgent that we pose the questions of ethics and meaning that will enable us to confront the human, the social and the moral significance of our changing relationship with the natural world.” Bravo!
ON THE OTHER HAND, Professor William George — a Prof. at Harvard Business School — is a member of the board of directors of ExxonMobil. Under the circumstances, I can’t reconcile all of these factors, given the stakes involved.
May I ask, what does Prof. George have to say about ExxonMobil as related to climate change and to ExxonMobil’s political actions and confusing and misleading public communications? Will Prof. George please write in and let us know his viewpoint and reasoning?
May I also ask, what does Harvard think about ExxonMobil and about the fact that Prof. George is a board member? Under the circumstances, is there not a limit that is appropriate and wise here? Is Harvard nothing more than a piece of real estate where most of the faculty can be working to advance wisdom and human well being, even as another member of the faculty — still part of the faculty and using its name — can be a key leader of a major company that is not being responsible to society, at all, under the circumstances?
Is there any UNIfying principle or ideal — wisdom maybe, or human well being? — to Harvard the University? Or, is Harvard the University really not much more than a piece of real estate and a very large endowment? Are those the unifying principles: real estate, endowment, and a common Post Office Box?
I ask these questions with high regard for Harvard and as a bit of “tough love”.
Be Well,
Jeff
Jeff Huggins
Harvard Business School, class of 1986, Baker Scholar
Appealing to Harvard to “do better”, soon
each faculty at harvard makes its own decisions. The president of harvard cannot tell the B school what to do. At some level it IS a brand, endowment, etc (and in fact even at that level, individual faculties have many of their own funds, IIUC)
I cannot imagine the B school banning its faculty from sitting on boards of companies because they lobby, as per their legal right, even if its for policy that research elsewhere in the universisty suggests is a bad idea. Where would it end? Cant sit on a board at Pharma, if Pharma lobbies for a health care approach someone at the Public Health School doesnt like? Cant sit on boards of companies with investments in China, Iran, Israel, India, whomever based on papers published in Arts and Sciences?
I like the idea of windows generating power from solar energy like with this collaboration between Pilkington and Dyesol.
DSC technology doesn’t need water and generates power even in the shade.
(Declaration of interest: I have some Dyesol shares)
I appreciate scientists’ organizing to act on their frustrations, and I liked Paul Erlich’s comment. A back page ad in the New York Times is a start, but scientists still don’t know how the majority of Americans are viewing this “debate”.
If a group such as climate scientists responds to accusations of fraud by citing the quality of their data, they just lost the public debate. Resorting to facts and lines of evidence is viewed by major blocs of the public as cowardly, and indicating a lack of conviction. Those who do respect scientific evidence have already figured out what’s going on, but scientists continue to be clueless about those who have been brainwashed by talk radio hosts and Fox commentators.
This audience is not beyond hope. Many of them have observed changes in the climate wherever they live. If scientists communicate emotion in the form of anger against ignorant people who call them liars, and defend the quality of their work with a little passion, that will resonate. It shows conviction, and many people believe that scientists in lab coats lack it, which in itself makes their evidence suspect.
There are many strategies available to break through to this audience. They do not include stuffy data citations, nor do they include hiring PR firms who know how to stroke audiences’ emotions. Americans smell a rat with Madison Avenue types, and have responded much more viscerally to people like Glen Beck, who operate intuitively.
Climate scientists need to find more communicators like JR here, who aren’t afraid to show emotion in public. Joe is the best at the written word, but a charismatic and articulate leader- which Gore and most other spokesmen are not- has to step up for the tube. I don’t know who he would be, but those people are out there. This is a big country, with plenty of bright and dynamic spokesmen, who are just as driven by the need to do something as any of the researchers and public figures who have stepped up so far.
To “another alum” (Comment 3),
Harvard understands — or should anyhow — the problems with linear thinking and the fact that not all conditions and situations are equal.
Sitting on the Board of Company B involved in Industry Y doing something that is disagreeable to Group of People Q need not be seen as the same as being a long-term director of the largest company in America, a company that has been confusing the public, hampering public policy, ignoring principles of transparency and (in many cases) logic and science, and doing immense, immense, immense harm.
Situations are different, scales are different, the natures of different problems are different, and if we humans haven’t gained that wisdom by now, we’re in trouble.
I’ll repeat my earlier points and questions, and I do hope that someone presently affiliated with Harvard, using a non-anonymous name, will write in to provide her/his viewpoint. If there is one thing I really don’t want to see, at this point, it is an anonymous name writing in. If Harvard and/or Harvard alums can’t use their own names, well anyhow, that doesn’t sit well with me.
Harvard has an immense responsibility to society — and to its own future credibility — and I think these questions (posed earlier) are important ones.
Go Crimson!
Jeff
It’s good to read that the scientists are starting to get organised to try to combat the misinformation and attacks against them and the science. But I’d have to be convinced that adverts on the back page of the NY Times is the way to go. Maybe they could think about getting some advice from PR specialists before they spend any of their hard earned money.
(I’d still prefer to see funds used for strategic legal cases, such as defamation – but that might not be the best use either.)
Are the emails obtained by the Washington Times part of the previously stolen emails or are they another set of stolen emails?
For that matter does anybody else find the use of the term “leaked” when talking about the stolen emails misleading? It’s like saying your credit card numbers were “leaked” to cybercriminals!
Mr Huggins
My employment prevents me from using my real name here, sorry. You can doubt my affiliation if you wish. I believe in responding to peoples arguments, not their credentials – I learned that at Harvard, but on the north bank of the Charles.
I understand you think this issue is different. So do I. But I am sure that advocates for Tibet, for Palestine, for any number of different issues would make the same case. Again, from all I know of the HBS, I don’t think they want to get into the business of making those distinctions.
And again, if you DO want them do to so, you need to address HBS on grounds that make sense to HBS, not on the assumption that Harvard University acts as a united entity. As an undergrad, I kept up enough with univerity politics to know that was the case. Perhaps at B school you didnt follow things that closely. Ask any alums you know (of any particular Harvard faculty) if they’ve heard of “each tub on its own bottom” (and yes, I know you still don’t beleive I went there. Thats okay)
By the way, if you read the Crimson, (the paper, not the color)you might have a higher degree of cynicism about the the leadership of Harvard U, not to mention more insight into the University’s decentralization.
“that was not the case”
pardon
Tipping point may have been reached – we are starting mass extinction number 7 I believe.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ greenspace/ 2010/ 03/ methane-arctic-ocean.html
This is called albedo – CO2 warms the planet which then goes into positive feedback. More warming means more methane release, much stronger green house gasses means “rapid warming” = Rapid ice loss = more rapid warming and eco system on the home planet starts to go into mass extinction.
A positive feedback pretty much means we are “super screwed” — Way to go humans, good job. The earth will load shed us like a bad virus for we are vomit, a rejection.
This comes at a time when “the retardation” of scinece is at an all level high, thanks to “political conservatism”. And somebody tell me what is “conservative” about political conservatives sucking out the natural resources of our planet into the atmosphere as “their open sewer” without heeding the ramifications of this large scale experiment. Hey some of us tried. Congrat’s You Idiots! You succeeded and now you can have your rapture.
Dear “another alum” (Comment 9),
I understand your points, but it doesn’t seem (to me) as though you are reading mine carefully or understanding them well.
First, I did not at all say that I didn’t think you were really a Harvard alum. I’ll let my earlier message speak for itself on that. You’ll not find that statement or assertion there.
Second, my broad comment (the first one) was meant for any and all folks at Harvard. I wasn’t writing only to University administrators or to any particular college or to HBS or anything. My message was a “macro” message intended to appeal to Harvard folks as (hopefully) big-picture thinkers.
We need to get over small-picture thinking. Small-picture thinking is what got us into this mess in the first place and is, indeed, what is keeping us stuck in this mess now.
You can trust that I’ve already done things related to appealing to the Business School (I’ve run a full-page ad in the paper there) and trying to appeal to Prof. George directly (I’ve corresponded with him before and he has corresponded with me before).
I hope these points clarify my earlier messages, and I am still hoping that Harvard (anyone and everyone there) lives up to what a place like Harvard should — literally speaking — be doing in a situation like this.
Be Well, and Go Crimson!
Jeff
I disagree with the statement “Increasing the cost of driving will be necessary to achieve greenhouse gas reductions sought by the government, according to an upcoming policy brief from Harvard University.”
Here in the UK, petrol, (gas to you guys) is just less than $7 per US gallon and the British are just as fond of using their cars as Americans if not more so. Proving that people will cling onto using their cars whatever the price of it and the extra tax will be swallowed up into Government coffers for no visible benefit for the environment. I would expect that if the cost of a gallon went up to $15 per gallon then people will still manage to find the money to drive everywhere. What will really be effective in getting people out of their cars is clean, cheap and safe public transport, cycle routes and local tax breaks for living near to one’s workplace.
Now that’s progress!
And climate skeptic Roy Spencer keeps running into record global temps: Feb 2010 2nd hottest in UAH satellite measurements http://bit.ly/RoySp
More global weirding:
Cold snap decimates Florida tomato crop
Some parts of Florida saw average temperatures so low that this January and February were among the 10 coldest on record, according to the National Weather Service.
“Anecdotally, from talking to some real long timers, as well as people who watch the weather, this has been the most extended cold in maybe 60 years,” said Terry McElroy, spokesman for the Florida Department of Agriculture.
Industry estimates suggest that about two-thirds of the tomato crop in the major southwestern production region was destroyed, according to a Feb. 25 United States Department of Agriculture report.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ id/ 35728221/ ns/ business-consumer_news/
To counter “Cold snap decimates…”
Unusual Arctic warmth as north hemisphere shivers. Local temperatures in the eastern Arctic were as much as 10 to 15 F above normal in December. It was the most negative phase of the Arctic oscillation seen since records began in the 1950’s. This has lead to…
Scant Arctic ice could mean summer “double whammy”. The ice growth rate was a bit over 1/3 of the average in the 1980s and less than the average for the 2000s. It could be an interesting summer coming up in the Arctic.
SEAT debuts IBE all-electric concept at Geneva Motor Show
http://www.ecofriend.org/ entry/ seat-debuts-ibe-all-electric-concept-at-geneva-motor-show/
Public Broadcasting Service to develop a prime-time science program, saying there must be a “face on TV and Radio that is real science.”
http://www.nytimes.com/ gwire/ 2010/ 03/ 05/ 05greenwire-e-mails-show-scientists-planning-push-back-aga-33296.html
China’s Environmental Protection 12th Five Year Plan
the establishment of a regional management framework to regulate major air pollutants and air toxics, and there is even a reference to Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Research on Joint Prevention and Treatment Programs for Regional Air Pollution and Air Quality Management Mechanism.
http://www.chinaenvironmentallaw.com/ 2009/ 03/ 04/ chinas-environmental-protection-12th-five-year-plan/
China’s Recent Steps Towards Meeting Its Climate Commitments
climate change had been a key priority in 2009 and that China will continue to take strong measures to implement its 2020 carbon intensity goal. He also noted that China had made progress in implementing its energy intensity goal and that China will actively support its rapidly developing clean energy sector.
The NPC is considering whether to adopt a proposal that focuses on low-carbon development as its No. 1 Resolution. The No. 1 Resolution is often considered one of the most influential documents in the legislative session. The proposal recommends that building a low-carbon economy should be a top government priority, including greening governmental offices and their activities by using recyclable materials and energy efficient lighting and transportation
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/ blogs/ bfinamore/ china_pushes_ahead.html
Wow, interesting stuff.
Those are some big parabolic troughs, on the hybrid solar/natural gas power plant. These are the sorts of scales that solar energy enthusiasts used to just dream about.
A more efficient way to make a solar/natural gas hybrid power plant might be to use a solar power tower design and a high temperature absorber to heat air to input to the gas turbines. Natural gas could then be burned to reach the combustion temperature of the gas turbine, approximately 1500 C or less for older turbines.
The output from the gas turbines at 500- 600 C could then be used to drive the Rankine steam cycle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle
Combined cycle can be almost twice as thermally efficient as simple cycle power plants, at the cost of some increase in complexity.
The solar parabolic troughs are interesting, and the scale is impressive. It’s also impressive that this appears to be a retrofit, on to an existing simple steam cycle power plant, not a combined gas turbine/steam power plant.
So, it’s great, but newer combined cycle power plants could do better, in terms of efficiency.
re: “Researchers hope to harness energy from office windows
“A project from the Center for Architecture Science and Ecology would use office windows as solar power generators by focusing the sun’s rays.”
This may be the type of technology important to scale-appropriate initiatives retrofitting entire city-states to net-zero built environments.
This window technology reminds me of an article in CoEvolution Quarterly in the late 70s/early 80s by Day Chahroudi, about windows resembling living systems (see http://www.nytimes.com/ 1992/ 08/ 16/ business/ technology-windows-that-know-when-to-let-light-in.html?pagewanted=all )and of Janine Benyus’ idea of biomimicry. Combining several substances and methods on a molecular AND a macro scale we could have buildings that make good decisions about how much light and heat to let in, and collect and use the rest for energy, without complicated breakdownable, energy-using mechanical devices. Advances like these should be where we put our money and “last hours of ancient sunlight”, not allegedly non-dirty coal and nuclear.
TNYT Business pages had an article on house foundation problems yesterday. Cost in US of fixing house foundations has gone up $1 billion per year due to GW.
Re: #17
> To counter “Cold snap decimates…”
You may have misunderstood the import of my post. I don’t think that record cold in one particular area is evidence against global climate change. Thomas Friedman recently used the phrase “Global Weirding” to describe the bizarre weather that seems to be hitting us recently. I think this record localized cold snap could very well be part of the changes in climate that are likely attributable to global climate change.