By Richard Martin
December 21, 2009 | 10:00 am | Wired Jan 2010
Photo: Thomas Hannich
The thick hardbound volume was sitting on a shelf in a colleague’s office when Kirk Sorensen spotted it. A rookie NASA engineer at the Marshall Space Flight Center, Sorensen was researching nuclear-powered propulsion, and the book’s title — Fluid Fuel Reactors — jumped out at him. He picked it up and thumbed through it. Hours later, he was still reading, enchanted by the ideas but struggling with the arcane writing. “I took it home that night, but I didn’t understand all the nuclear terminology,” Sorensen says. He pored over it in the coming months, ultimately deciding that he held in his hands the key to the world’s energy future.
Published in 1958 under the auspices of the Atomic Energy Commission as part of its Atoms for Peace program, Fluid Fuel Reactors is a book only an engineer could love: a dense, 978-page account of research conducted at Oak Ridge National Lab, most of it under former director Alvin Weinberg. What caught Sorensen’s eye was the description of Weinberg’s experiments producing nuclear power with an element called thorium.
At the time, in 2000, Sorensen was just 25, engaged to be married and thrilled to be employed at his first serious job as a real aerospace engineer. A devout Mormon with a linebacker’s build and a marine’s crew cut, Sorensen made an unlikely iconoclast. But the book inspired him to pursue an intense study of nuclear energy over the next few years, during which he became convinced that thorium could solve the nuclear power industry’s most intractable problems. After it has been used as fuel for power plants, the element leaves behind minuscule amounts of waste. And that waste needs to be stored for only a few hundred years, not a few hundred thousand like other nuclear byproducts. Because it’s so plentiful in nature, it’s virtually inexhaustible. It’s also one of only a few substances that acts as a thermal breeder, in theory creating enough new fuel as it breaks down to sustain a high-temperature chain reaction indefinitely. And it would be virtually impossible for the byproducts of a thorium reactor to be used by terrorists or anyone else to make nuclear weapons.
Weinberg and his men proved the efficacy of thorium reactors in hundreds of tests at Oak Ridge from the ’50s through the early ’70s. But thorium hit a dead end. Locked in a struggle with a nuclear- armed Soviet Union, the US government in the ’60s chose to build uranium-fueled reactors — in part because they produce plutonium that can be refined into weapons-grade material. The course of the nuclear industry was set for the next four decades, and thorium power became one of the great what-if technologies of the 20th century.
Today, however, Sorensen spearheads a cadre of outsiders dedicated to sparking a thorium revival. When he’s not at his day job as an aerospace engineer at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama — or wrapping up the master’s in nuclear engineering he is soon to earn from the University of Tennessee — he runs a popular blog called Energy From Thorium. A community of engineers, amateur nuclear power geeks, and researchers has gathered around the site’s forum, ardently discussing the future of thorium. The site even links to PDFs of the Oak Ridge archives, which Sorensen helped get scanned. Energy From Thorium has become a sort of open source project aimed at resurrecting long-lost energy technology using modern techniques.
And the online upstarts aren’t alone. Industry players are looking into thorium, and governments from Dubai to Beijing are funding research. India is betting heavily on the element.
The concept of nuclear power without waste or proliferation has obvious political appeal in the US, as well. The threat of climate change has created an urgent demand for carbon-free electricity, and the 52,000 tons of spent, toxic material that has piled up around the country makes traditional nuclear power less attractive. President Obama and his energy secretary, Steven Chu, have expressed general support for a nuclear renaissance. Utilities are investigating several next-gen alternatives, including scaled-down conventional plants and “pebble bed” reactors, in which the nuclear fuel is inserted into small graphite balls in a way that reduces the risk of meltdown.
Those technologies are still based on uranium, however, and will be beset by the same problems that have dogged the nuclear industry since the 1960s. It is only thorium, Sorensen and his band of revolutionaries argue, that can move the country toward a new era of safe, clean, affordable energy.
Named for the Norse god of thunder, thorium is a lustrous silvery-white metal. It’s only slightly radioactive; you could carry a lump of it in your pocket without harm. On the periodic table of elements, it’s found in the bottom row, along with other dense, radioactive substances — including uranium and plutonium — known as actinides.
Actinides are dense because their nuclei contain large numbers of neutrons and protons. But it’s the strange behavior of those nuclei that has long made actinides the stuff of wonder. At intervals that can vary from every millisecond to every hundred thousand years, actinides spin off particles and decay into more stable elements. And if you pack together enough of certain actinide atoms, their nuclei will erupt in a powerful release of energy.
To understand the magic and terror of those two processes working in concert, think of a game of pool played in 3-D. The nucleus of the atom is a group of balls, or particles, racked at the center. Shoot the cue ball — a stray neutron — and the cluster breaks apart, or fissions. Now imagine the same game played with trillions of racked nuclei. Balls propelled by the first collision crash into nearby clusters, which fly apart, their stray neutrons colliding with yet more clusters. Voilè0: a nuclear chain reaction.
Actinides are the only materials that split apart this way, and if the collisions are uncontrolled, you unleash hell: a nuclear explosion. But if you can control the conditions in which these reactions happen — by both controlling the number of stray neutrons and regulating the temperature, as is done in the core of a nuclear reactor — you get useful energy. Racks of these nuclei crash together, creating a hot glowing pile of radioactive material. If you pump water past the material, the water turns to steam, which can spin a turbine to make electricity.
Uranium is currently the actinide of choice for the industry, used (sometimes with a little plutonium) in 100 percent of the world’s commercial reactors. But it’s a problematic fuel. In most reactors, sustaining a chain reaction requires extremely rare uranium-235, which must be purified, or enriched, from far more common U-238. The reactors also leave behind plutonium-239, itself radioactive (and useful to technologically sophisticated organizations bent on making bombs). And conventional uranium-fueled reactors require lots of engineering, including neutron-absorbing control rods to damp the reaction and gargantuan pressurized vessels to move water through the reactor core. If something goes kerflooey, the surrounding countryside gets blanketed with radioactivity (think Chernobyl). Even if things go well, toxic waste is left over.
When he took over as head of Oak Ridge in 1955, Alvin Weinberg realized that thorium by itself could start to solve these problems. It’s abundant — the US has at least 175,000 tons of the stuff — and doesn’t require costly processing. It is also extraordinarily efficient as a nuclear fuel. As it decays in a reactor core, its byproducts produce more neutrons per collision than conventional fuel. The more neutrons per collision, the more energy generated, the less total fuel consumed, and the less radioactive nastiness left behind.
Even better, Weinberg realized that you could use thorium in an entirely new kind of reactor, one that would have zero risk of meltdown. The design is based on the lab’s finding that thorium dissolves in hot liquid fluoride salts. This fission soup is poured into tubes in the core of the reactor, where the nuclear chain reaction — the billiard balls colliding — happens. The system makes the reactor self-regulating: When the soup gets too hot it expands and flows out of the tubes — slowing fission and eliminating the possibility of another Chernobyl. Any actinide can work in this method, but thorium is particularly well suited because it is so efficient at the high temperatures at which fission occurs in the soup.
In 1965, Weinberg and his team built a working reactor, one that suspended the byproducts of thorium in a molten salt bath, and he spent the rest of his 18-year tenure trying to make thorium the heart of the nation’s atomic power effort. He failed. Uranium reactors had already been established, and Hyman Rickover, de facto head of the US nuclear program, wanted the plutonium from uranium-powered nuclear plants to make bombs. Increasingly shunted aside, Weinberg was finally forced out in 1973.
That proved to be “the most pivotal year in energy history,” according to the US Energy Information Administration. It was the year the Arab states cut off oil supplies to the West, setting in motion the petroleum-fueled conflicts that roil the world to this day. The same year, the US nuclear industry signed contracts to build a record 41 nuke plants, all of which used uranium. And 1973 was the year that thorium R&D faded away — and with it the realistic prospect for a golden nuclear age when electricity would be too cheap to meter and clean, safe nuclear plants would dot the green countryside.
The core of this hypothetical nuclear reactor is a cluster of tubes filled with a fluoride thorium solution. 1// compressor, 2// turbine, 3// 1,000 megawatt generator, 4// heat exchanger, 5// containment vessel, 6// reactor core.
Illustration: Martin Woodtli
When Sorensen and his pals began delving into this history, they discovered not only an alternative fuel but also the design for the alternative reactor. Using that template, the Energy From Thorium team helped produce a design for a new liquid fluoride thorium reactor, or LFTR (pronounced “lifter”), which, according to estimates by Sorensen and others, would be some 50 percent more efficient than today’s light-water uranium reactors. If the US reactor fleet could be converted to LFTRs overnight, existing thorium reserves would power the US for a thousand years.
Overseas, the nuclear power establishment is getting the message. In France, which already generates more than 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, the Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie has been building models of variations of Weinberg’s design for molten salt reactors to see if they can be made to work efficiently. The real action, though, is in India and China, both of which need to satisfy an immense and growing demand for electricity. The world’s largest source of thorium, India, doesn’t have any commercial thorium reactors yet. But it has announced plans to increase its nuclear power capacity: Nuclear energy now accounts for 9 percent of India’s total energy; the government expects that by 2050 it will be 25 percent, with thorium generating a large part of that. China plans to build dozens of nuclear reactors in the coming decade, and it hosted a major thorium conference last October. The People’s Republic recently ordered mineral refiners to reserve the thorium they produce so it can be used to generate nuclear power.
In the United States, the LFTR concept is gaining momentum, if more slowly. Sorensen and others promote it regularly at energy conferences. Renowned climatologist James Hansen specifically cited thorium as a potential fuel source in an “Open Letter to Obama” after the election. And legislators are acting, too. At least three thorium-related bills are making their way through the Capitol, including the Senate’s Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act, cosponsored by Orrin Hatch of Utah and Harry Reid of Nevada, which would provide $250 million for research at the Department of Energy. “I don’t know of anything more beneficial to the country, as far as environmentally sound power, than nuclear energy powered by thorium,” Hatch says. (Both senators have long opposed nuclear waste dumps in their home states.)
Unfortunately, $250 million won’t solve the problem. The best available estimates for building even one molten salt reactor run much higher than that. And there will need to be lots of startup capital if thorium is to become financially efficient enough to persuade nuclear power executives to scrap an installed base of conventional reactors. “What we have now works pretty well,” says John Rowe, CEO of Exelon, a power company that owns the country’s largest portfolio of nuclear reactors, “and it will for the foreseeable future.”
Critics point out that thorium’s biggest advantage — its high efficiency — actually presents challenges. Since the reaction is sustained for a very long time, the fuel needs special containers that are extremely durable and can stand up to corrosive salts. The combination of certain kinds of corrosion-resistant alloys and graphite could meet these requirements. But such a system has yet to be proven over decades.
And LFTRs face more than engineering problems; they’ve also got serious perception problems. To some nuclear engineers, a LFTR is a little … unsettling. It’s a chaotic system without any of the closely monitored control rods and cooling towers on which the nuclear industry stakes its claim to safety. A conventional reactor, on the other hand, is as tightly engineered as a jet fighter. And more important, Americans have come to regard anything that’s in any way nuclear with profound skepticism.
So, if US utilities are unlikely to embrace a new generation of thorium reactors, a more viable strategy would be to put thorium into existing nuclear plants. In fact, work in that direction is starting to happen — thanks to a US company operating in Russia.
Located outside Moscow, the Kurchatov Institute is known as the Los Alamos of Russia. Much of the work on the Soviet nuclear arsenal took place here. In the late ’80s, as the Soviet economy buckled, Kurchatov scientists found themselves wearing mittens to work in unheated laboratories. Then, in the mid-’90s, a savior appeared: a Virginia company called Thorium Power.
Uranium-Fueled Light-Water Reactor
Fuel Uranium fuel rods
Fuel input per gigawatt output 250 tons raw uranium
Annual fuel cost for 1-GW reactor $50-60 million
Coolant Water
Proliferation potential Medium
Footprint 200,000-300,000 square feet, surrounded by a low-density population zone
Seed-and-Blanket Reactor
Fuel Thorium oxide and uranium oxide rods
Fuel input per gigawatt output 4.6 tons raw thorium, 177 tons raw uranium
Annual fuel cost for 1-GW reactor $50-60 million
Coolant Water
Proliferation potential None
Footprint 200,000-300,000 square feet, surrounded by a low-density population zone
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor
Fuel Thorium and uranium fluoride solution
Fuel input per gigawatt output 1 ton raw thorium
Annual fuel cost for 1-GW reactor $10,000 (estimated)
Coolant Self-regulating
Proliferation potential None
Footprint 2,000-3,000 square feet, with no need for a buffer zone
Founded by another Alvin — American nuclear physicist Alvin Radkowsky — Thorium Power, since renamed Lightbridge, is attempting to commercialize technology that will replace uranium with thorium in conventional reactors. From 1950 to 1972, Radkowsky headed the team that designed reactors to power Navy ships and submarines, and in 1977 Westinghouse opened a reactor he had drawn up — with a uranium thorium core. The reactor ran efficiently for five years until the experiment was ended. Radkowsky formed his company in 1992 with millions of dollars from the Initiative for Proliferation Prevention Program, essentially a federal make-work effort to keep those chilly former Soviet weapons scientists from joining another team.
The reactor design that Lightbridge created is known as seed-and-blanket. Its core consists of a seed of enriched uranium rods surrounded by a blanket of rods made of thorium oxide mixed with uranium oxide. This yields a safer, longer-lived reaction than uranium rods alone. It also produces less waste, and the little bit it does leave behind is unsuitable for use in weapons.
CEO Seth Grae thinks it’s better business to convert existing reactors than it is to build new ones. “We’re just trying to replace leaded fuel with unleaded,” he says. “You don’t have to replace engines or build new gas stations.” Grae is speaking from Abu Dhabi, where he has multimillion-dollar contracts to advise the United Arab Emirates on its plans for nuclear power. In August 2009, Lightbridge signed a deal with the French firm Areva, the world’s largest nuclear power producer, to investigate alternative nuclear fuel assemblies.
Until developing the consulting side of its business, Lightbridge struggled to build a convincing business model. Now, Grae says, the company has enough revenue to commercialize its seed-and-blanket system. It needs approval from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission — which could be difficult given that the design was originally developed and tested in Russian reactors. Then there’s the nontrivial matter of winning over American nuclear utilities. Seed-and-blanket doesn’t just have to work — it has to deliver a significant economic edge.
For Sorensen, putting thorium into a conventional reactor is a half measure, like putting biofuel in a Hummer. But he acknowledges that the seed-and-blanket design has potential to get the country on its way to a greener, safer nuclear future. “The real enemy is coal,” he says. “I want to fight it with LFTRs — which are like machine guns — instead of with light-water reactors, which are like bayonets. But when the enemy is spilling into the trench, you affix bayonets and go to work.” The thorium battalion is small, but — as nuclear physics demonstrates — tiny forces can yield powerful effects.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Pop-Up Cities: China Builds a Bright Green Metropolis
Douglas McGray 04.24.07 | 2:00 AM
"Dongtan was a rare chance," Alejandro Gutierrez says, "to demonstrate that growth could happen a different way."
Photograph by James Day
China's Great Green Leap Forward
Three years ago, Alejandro Gutierrez got a strange and tantalizing message from Hong Kong. Some McKinsey consultants were putting together a business plan for a big client that wanted to build a small city on the outskirts of Shanghai. But the land, at the marshy eastern tip of a massive, mostly undeveloped island at the mouth of the Yangtze River, was a migratory stop for one of the rarest birds in the world — the black-faced spoonbill, a gangly white creature with a long, flat beak.
McKinsey wanted to know if the developer, the Shanghai Industrial Investment Corporation, could bring businesses to the island without messing up thet bird habitat. The consultants thought Gutierrez's firm could figure it out. Gutierrez, an architect and urban designer for engineering and design giant Arup, didn't know anything about birds. But he was a veteran of several big-city design projects in his native Chile and something of a young star at Arup's London headquarters. The scope of the idea awed him. A whole new city? Were they serious? More important, could Arup get in on it? He quickly caught a flight to Shanghai.
Today Gutierrez and a team of Arup specialists from Europe, North America, and Asia are finalizing a plan for a scratch- built metropolis called Dongtan. Anywhere else in the world, it would have been a thought exercise, done up pretty for a design book or a museum show. But Shanghai's economy is growing three times faster than the US economy did at the height of the dotcom boom. More than 2,000 high-rises have gone up within city limits in the past decade. The city's most famous stretch of skyline, including the jewel-box-like Jin Mao Tower and the purple rocket-shaped Pearl TV Tower, was a rice paddy just 20 years ago. Now some 130 million people live within a two and a half hour drive of downtown. Even the wild ideas get built here.
Dongtan breaks ground later this year on a plot about the size of Manhattan on Chongming Island. The first condos and commercial space will hit the market by 2010, around the time a 12-mile bridge and tunnel combo and subway extension will link the city to Shanghai's new international airport (45 minutes away) and financial district (30 minutes). By 2050, Dongtan will have a half-million residents, more than Miami or Atlanta today.
That may count as a cozy little town in a country of 1.3 billion people. But Dongtan is a dramatic gambit, and not just because a whole city will rise, fully realized, from nothing. With Dongtan, Arup is testing a radical new approach to urban design, one that suggests cities across China and the rest of the developing world can actually get greener as they grow. "Norman Foster, Richard Rogers, SOM, HOK are all doing better or worse design," Gutierrez says, subtly dismissing some of the architecture world's biggest names (including at least one that angled for the Dongtan job). "But they're not addressing the central problem of this age — resource efficiency — and how it relates to cultural, social, and economic development."
Mao Tse-tung believed the natural world was all that stood between Communist China and its industrial future. His country, he said in a 1940 speech, "must use natural science to understand, conquer, and change nature." And conquer it did. Forests were razed, up to 90 percent of the trees in some provinces. The government, in a scheme to accelerate steel production, forced Beijing residents to smelt metal in hundreds of thousands of polluting backyard furnaces. New factories dumped untreated waste into the rivers until they turned a deep, noxious black. When China's economy began to take off in the 1980s, conditions got worse. Foreign firms put their most toxic manufacturing operations in China. Sudden prosperity, and a rush to boomtowns like Shanghai, drove energy demand well beyond what the grid could provide. Today, China opens an average of one new coal-fired power plant per week, the main reason it will pass the US in the next two years as the world's biggest source of CO2 emissions. Since 2001, China has increased its emissions more than every other industrialized country in the world combined.
The plan was never to pollute forever; it was to chase wealth at any cost and clean up later. And that made some sense. Even now, after three decades of rapid economic growth, more than 160 million Chinese still live on less than a dollar a day. The trouble is, environmental degradation has become a drag on China's development. The government revealed last year that environmental damage costs the economy $200 billion a year, a full 10 percent of China's GDP. The cost to public heath and quality of life may be even greater. Overcultivation, overgrazing, and massive timber consumption have turned a quarter of China's land into desert. Over 400 million Chinese drink contaminated water. When still air settles over Shanghai, the sky turns thick and white, the horizon the color of a nicotine stain. The government figures that 300,000 people die prematurely each year from polluted air. When I visited the neighborhood surrounding Shanghai's oldest power plant — a maze of narrow streets and tiny homes that seem piled one on top of the another — I caught a breath of warm air from a row of exhaust vents, coughed until my chest burned, and then gagged.
Arup believes good design can do something about this mess. Dongtan's master plan — hundreds of pages of maps, schematics, and data — has almost nothing to say about architectural style. Instead, it outlines the world's first green city, every block engineered in response to China's environmental crisis. It's like the source code for an urban operating system. "We're not focused on the form," Gutierrez explains. "We're focused on the performance of the form." He and his team imagine a city powered by local, renewable energy, with superefficient buildings clustered in dense, walkable neighborhoods; a recycling scheme that repurposes 90 percent of all waste; a network of high tech organic farms; and a ban on any vehicle that emits CO2.
From the beginning, the operation has been risky. Foreign architects can quickly lose control of their Chinese projects and lose face when developers decide to cut costs and redesign on the fly. Many glimmering Shanghai towers look like Tokyo on the outside but Moscow on the inside. And China loves its monuments. Dongtan could easily devolve into a Potemkin eco-village, a show-offy display of green technology that fails as a living, working community. "We were dubious, of course, at the beginning as to whether the client was really committed," Gutierrez says. And even if SIIC stayed idealistic, nobody had ever designed and built a green city before. Arup could get it wrong and simply push sprawl into one of the few remaining green spaces around Shanghai. But China is in a position to chart a smarter path, not just for its own exploding cities but for the booming urban hubs around the world — Dubai, Khartoum, Lagos, Mumbai, Rio de Janeiro — where populations are set to double in the next 30 years. "We thought Dongtan was a rare chance," Gutierrez says, "to demonstrate that growth could happen a different way."
When he sees Shanghai for the first time, in May 2004, Gutierrez is wide-eyed with excitement and wide-awake with jet lag. He meets an SIIC delegation downtown, and they drive an hour north, through Shanghai's brutal traffic, to the Yangtze River. There, the group sets off on a ferry for Dongtan.
Inside the crowded cabin, a television plays soap operas. Outside, men in baseball jackets and fake leather bombers line the railing and smoke. The water is a milky brown, full of silt from upriver that, about a millennium ago, began to pile up where the river and ocean currents meet — a sandbar that has grown into a 470-square-mile alluvial island.
The SIIC group drives Gutierrez through the island's biggest port, a short strip of low concrete boxes where locals sell vegetables, sugarcane, and cold drinks. Pedal-powered rickshaws outnumber automobiles, making Shanghai's neon swagger seem far away. They turn onto a narrow, newly paved road to Dongtan, and development disappears. Flat fields of bok choy and swampy rice paddies stretch to the horizon, crisscrossed by long irrigation canals carved out by banished Shanghai intellectuals during the Cultural Revolution. The site is gigantic. And except for the occasional, rickety shed, built for farmworkers who stay in the fields overnight, it's completely empty. Because Gutierrez came here to think about bird habitat, they drive to the marsh at the eastern edge of the island, a huge expanse of tall, golden grass that seems to extend over the horizon into the East China Sea.
Nearly all land in China is owned by the state. But SIIC, the second biggest builder in China, owns Dongtan. In the 1990s, when China's business climate was less liberal than it is today, many Chinese firms ran parallel businesses in Hong Kong, where it was easier to attract foreign capital. SIIC was the Shanghai mun icipal government's Hong Kong operation, a public-private pharmaceutical and real estate company. When most of Asia's economy tanked in the late 1990s — and Hong Kong had it especially rough — many of the businesses in that city went under. To replenish SIIC's shrinking assets, Shanghai gave the company a piece of Chongming Island. That land ownership allows SIIC an unusual degree of freedom to think longer-term and do something bold.
Shanghai's bureaucrats let it be known that Chongming Island must stay green, and SIIC agreed. The developer commissioned a series of ecological studies. Then it invited Philip Johnson, the late icon of American architecture, to design a master plan. SIIC showed Johnson's staff the site and briefed them on the environmental constraints. For months, designers flew back and forth to the site, making plans for a leafy, low-density garden suburb built around a huge man-made lake. Finally Johnson's team arrived in Shanghai to present its plan — and found it was not alone. London-based Atkins and Paris-based Architecture-Studio, both giants in the architecture world, had also created master plans for SIIC. Nobody knew it was going to be a competition. Dinner afterward was awkward, and none of the proposals went anywhere.
Part of the problem was that SIIC wasn't sure yet what it wanted. Its people talked about Dongtan as an eco-city, but they also talked about it as a quaint green suburb or as Shanghai's Hamptons, a place for the city's wealthy to flee for the weekend. They seemed to have good intentions but little direction.
That night of Gutierrez's trip to Chongming Island, Arup's team huddled in their Shanghai hotel rooms, calling colleagues in London and Hong Kong. They had decided to do the bird thing for McKinsey, but they would also shop some bigger ideas directly to SIIC. Dongtan could be the kind of grand project Arup had been looking for.
Founded by engineer Ove Arup in the 1940s, London-based Arup has 86 offices in more than 30 countries and a staff of nearly 9,000, including 1,500 in China. The firm dispatches engineers and architects but also economists, environmental scientists, MBAs, energy experts, transportation gurus, and cultural anthropologists to projects around the globe. Still, its work is often anonymous: When a famous architect designs a dramatic skin for some big building, Arup designs the guts. It engineered the overlapping shells of the Sydney Opera House and figured out how to turn a building inside out when it worked on the Centre Pompidou in Paris.
Gutierrez, though, was part of an ambitious new initiative at Arup, a kind of skunkworks, organized around something the firm called "integrated urbanism." Instead of focusing on something like water or stadiums or waste management, this team would pull expertise from every corner of the firm. If the idea worked, Arup could get in earlier on big planning projects. This way it could help design cities that work better — not just as grids or transport networks or skylines but as ecosystems engineered from the start to foil gridlock, energy waste, pollution, even economic inequality. Instead of sketching out the look of a future city, Gutierrez would avoid form altogether. He'd focus on coming up with the rules and standards Arup would follow to deliver a city. SIIC was intrigued.
Later that May, Gutierrez joined a team back at Arup's headquarters near the University of London, across an old stone courtyard from a house where Virginia Woolf and George Bernard Shaw had once lived (at different times). There was Roger Wood, a manager who joined Gutierrez in Shanghai; an environment expert from the Newcastle office; a pair of economists; some urban designers; and of course, the bird guy. They were also about to get a boss: Arup hired Peter Head, a prominent member of the London Sustainable Development Commission and green guru for London's Olympic Construction task force, as the firm's first director of Planning and Integrated Urbanism. He would negotiate a contract to design Dongtan. Gutierrez and the rest of the team had to turn abstract concepts of urbanism into a real city. The team began to gather around a long table and debate. Gutierrez would usually lead the conversation, sketching the group's ideas on copier paper.
Their first decision was big. Dongtan needed more people. Way more. Shanghai's planning bureau figured 50,000 people should live on the site — they assumed a green island should not be crowded — and the other international architects had agreed, drafting Dongtan as an American-style suburb with low-rise condos scattered across the plot and lots of lawns and parks in between. "It's all very nice to have little houses in a green field," Gutierrez says. But that would be an environmental disaster. If neighborhoods are spread out, then people need cars to get around. If population is low, then public transportation is a money loser.
But how many more people? Double? Triple? The team found research on energy consumption in cities around the world, plotted on a curve according to population density. Up to about 50 residents per acre, roughly equivalent to Stockholm or Copenhagen, per capita energy use falls fast. People walk and bike more, public transit makes economic sense, and there are ways to make heating and cooling more efficient. But then the curve flattens out. Pack in 120 people per acre, like Singapore, or 300 people, like Hong Kong, and the energy savings are negligible. Dongtan, the team decided, should try to hit that sweet spot around Stockholm.
Next, they had to figure out how high to build. A density rate of 50 people per acre could mean a lot of low buildings, or a handful of skyscrapers, or something in between. Here, the land made the decision for them. Dongtan's soil is squishy. Any building taller than about eight stories would need expensive work at the foundation to keep it upright. To give the place some variety and open up paths for summer wind and natural light, they settled on a range of four to eight stories across the city. Then, using CAD software, they started dropping blocks of buildings on the site and counting heads.
The results were startling. They could bump up Dongtan's population 10 times, to 500,000, and still build on a smaller share of the site than any of the other planners had suggested, leaving 65 percent of the land open for farms, parks, and wildlife habitat. A rough outline of the city, a real eco-city, began to take shape: a reasonably dense urban middle, with smart breaks for green space, all surrounded by farms, parks, and unspoiled wetland. Instead of sprawling out, the city would grow in a line along a public transit corridor.
That was pretty much it for the easy stuff.
Arup had to figure out how to keep Dongtan above water. Chongming Island is flat and barely higher than sea level. The previous planners, thinking defensively, had pulled development back to the middle of the site, imagining Dongtan as an island city with no harbor, no waterfront caf s, no ocean-view condos. Gutierrez thought that was kind of a waste.
"We went back to the site," he recalls, "and, being completely ignorant Westerners, we asked the client, 'Have you seen Venice?'" Gutierrez had been sketching Venice's waterways and floodgates. "They said, very politely, 'Yeah, we know about Venice,'" Gutierrez recalls, smiling sheepishly. "Then they took us to see these fantastic, beautiful water towns in the Yangtze River Delta that are much older. They have decks and terraces and promenades that are very close to the water," Gutierrez says. "In one part of a town, they developed a pond to control water levels, in another they had a wider canal, in another they developed a lake. They had a much more fine-tuned understanding of how to manage water than the Italians did."
Inspired by those ancient Chinese water towns, Gutierrez began drawing canals in one zone, ponds in another, and a big lake in a third. He designed courtyards and lawns to drain away from buildings. And he created flood cells within the city, like chambers in a submarine, so if Dongtan got slammed by a once-in-a-century storm, the seawater would stay in a single cell. At the water's edge, instead of a high levee, he drew a gentle hill that would recede into a wide wetland basin — a park, bird habitat, and natural storm barrier.
Next, the city needed green power. But the planning process grew complicated. A city is a huge mess of dependent variables. The right recycling facility can turn trash into kilowatts. The right power plant can convert waste energy into heat. The right city map will encourage people to walk to the store instead of drive. "These are things people don't normally plan together," Gutierrez says.
They needed something they started calling an "integrated resource model," something to show how each change would ripple across the city plan. So Arup's programmers wrote software that stitched together databases detailing the inputs (say, the cost of photovoltaic panels) and outputs (electricity generated per panel) of any facility, process, product, and human activity on the island. If the team moves an office park a mile, the software can recalculate average walking distances for commuters, figure how many people will drive or take public transit instead of walk, and then add up the ultimate change in energy demand. Maybe more important, the software makes it easy to spot places where one process creates waste that another process could recycle. "Design was very trial-and-error," Gutierrez says. "The only thing we knew was that we wanted to connect things, to create virtuous cycles."
A power scheme started to take shape. Dongtan's plant would burn plant matter to drive a steam turbine and generate electricity. What to burn, though? They could have planted miscanthus, a tall, feathery grass. It sprouts fast and burns clean. But if Arup planted miscanthus fields, it would sacrifice lots of land to a single purpose. Then it struck them: rice husks. China already grows mountains of rice, and farmers just trash the husks. Dongtan could take a useless byproduct and use it to light the city.
Instead of building the plant far away and out of sight, Arup would put it up near the city center, capture waste heat, and pipe it throughout the town. With good insulation and smart design, the plant could heat and cool every building in Dongtan. "We can get something like 80 percent efficiency in our fuel conversion," says Chris Twinn, the Dongtan team's energy chief. "The Prius is probably only 20 percent efficient. The rest is wasted. Why are we satisfied with that?"
Between biomass, a big wind farm, and numerous tiny contributions to the grid — including photovoltaic panels and small wind turbines — Arup figured Dongtan could get 60 percent of its energy from renewable sources when the city opened in 2010, and 100 percent within 20 years.
As the plan expanded, so did Gutierrez's team, from about a dozen in May 2004 to more than 100 today. And as they pulled in new experts from around the firm, they saw new virtuous cycles. Arup investigated hollowing out the hills at the edge of the city and installing underground "plant factories" — stacked trays of organic crops, growing under solar-powered LEDs, that seem to yield as much as six times more produce per acre than conventional farming. Arup would run twin water networks throughout the city: one that supplies drinking water to kitchens and another that supplies treated waste water for toilet flushing and farm irrigation. Trucks delivering goods from across China would park at consolidation warehouses on the edge of the city, then load up shared, zero- emission delivery trucks to reduce traffic and save gas. Waste would be either recycled or gasified for energy, and the captured heat would be converted into more power; no more than 10 percent of the city's trash would be permitted to end up as landfill. To invite in cooling summer breezes, block winter winds, and reduce demand for heat and air-conditioning, they would position trees strategically and persuade the client to twist the city grid slightly off a traditional north-south axis (a feng shui idea that has become an almost inviolable rule of Chinese city planning). Meanwhile, traveling spoonbills would find their marshy grassland undisturbed — far from the center of town and sheltered from people and industry by a wide buffer of farmland.
Dongtan was looking less like a city, at least the urban resource hogs that exist today, and more like an ecosystem, a closed loop. "It's a green island that shows you can decouple economic development from environmental impact," Gutierrez says.
In October 2005, armed with a city design and a strategy to build it, Gutierrez, Head, and a handful of specialists returned to Shanghai and presented their plans to SIIC. Dongtan will go up in three phases, each one adding a new, mixed-use neighborhood, complete with condos, offices, and retail space that will all sprout up at once. Gutierrez cleverly designed each neighborhood with two downtowns: one at the center, modest and intimate, within easy walking distance from homes and offices, and one at the edge. The three at the edges will overlap and gradually grow into metropolitan Dongtan. "Our worst-case scenario is that Dongtan starts out as a tourism-based settlement," Gutierrez explains, "but grows over time to include other industries." Best-case scenario: China's huge market for renewable energy and Dongtan's bright-green reputation persuade clean technology firms to set up labs and commercial outposts in the city.
The presentation lasted a couple of hours. When it was over, SIIC's chair spoke. He liked Arup's plan a lot. But he wanted Dongtan to draw every bit of its power from local renewable energy starting the first day. "We had been very proud that we could get 60 percent of our energy from renewables!" Gutierrez says, smiling. "But the client said that's not good enough." Arup was thrilled — kind of. If anything, the firm expected pressure to simplify Dongtan, not to make it more ambitious.
The answer, the team decided, was building up the green power infrastructure faster and slashing energy demand further. A recent change in China's energy law would allow Dongtan's power company to sell surplus green energy to Shanghai's grid, justifying the expensive new hardware until the new city grew into its supply. Reducing demand was harder. But Arup hit upon a clever solution. Instead of hiding indecipherable energy meters behind buildings, it would put a simple meter in an obvious location like a kitchen or office. Residents could track their own use — and get regular reminders over SMS and email. Up to a reasonable limit, energy is pretty cheap. Go over and the price spikes.
SIIC approved Arup's master plan last summer: hundreds of pages covering everything from the permissible range of heat transfer through condo walls to the surface area of ponds and canals that must feature native aquatic plants. By the end of the year, builders will begin installing the city's infrastructure, and SIIC will hire architects to start planting buildings in Arup's ecosystem. Arup, meanwhile, is already considering a pair of modest Dongtan sequels — a small neighborhood outside Shanghai and a town near Beijing — and is working on several other green communities across China, plus one in St. Petersburg, Russia.
This year, for the first time in history, the majority of the world's population lives in cities. By 2050, two-thirds will call a city home. Most of that urban growth will happen in the developing world. "Tokyo, London, and New York are extremely interesting," says Ricky Burdett, director of the Cities project at the London School of Economics. "But their massive development has already happened — in London, 150 years ago, in New York, 100 years ago, in Tokyo, 50 years ago." Shanghai represents the forward edge of the planet's next urban explosion.
These new megacities could evolve into sprawling, polluting megaslums. Or they could define a new species of world city. Unlike New York or London, they are blank slates — less affluent, perhaps, but also free from legacy designs and technologies tailored to the world of the 19th and 20th centuries. That is a huge advantage. It took Boston 20 years and more than $14 billion just to reroute a freeway underground. New York can hardly install a second network of water pipes. Most of Los Angeles is too spread out for fast public transit or combined heat and power plants. And because these cities are so isolated from agricultural land, most of the food that locals eat gets shipped hundreds of miles. "Shanghai today is making 90 percent of the mistakes that American cities made," Burdett argues — spreading out, building up single-family homes, replacing naturally mixed-use neighborhoods with isolated zones for living, shopping, and working, and connecting it all with car travel. But fixing these problems is still possible.
If Dongtan lives up to expectations, it will serve as a model for cities across China and the rest of the developing world — cities that, given new tools, might leapfrog the environmental and public health costs that have always come with economic progress, a relationship Gutierrez calls "the nightmare of the 20th century." Even old American and European cities may find bits and pieces of Dongtan that they can use, especially when they redevelop industrial plots or build out at the edges. Arup would like to apply lessons from Dongtan to a pair of new developments in San Francisco and Napa County. Parts of urban Europe are approximately the right density for a combined heat and power system to work. London mayor Ken Livingstone visited Dongtan hoping to get inspiration for a huge zero-emission development about to break ground in East London.
"Shanghai will grow," Gutierrez says. "The question is how it will grow. We can program into its DNA a sustainable growth pattern. We have to make cities, as much as we can, future proof ."
Douglas McGray (mcgray@newamerica.net), a fellow at the New America Foundation, wrote about the designer of the $100 laptop in issue 14.08.
"Dongtan was a rare chance," Alejandro Gutierrez says, "to demonstrate that growth could happen a different way."
Photograph by James Day
China's Great Green Leap Forward
Three years ago, Alejandro Gutierrez got a strange and tantalizing message from Hong Kong. Some McKinsey consultants were putting together a business plan for a big client that wanted to build a small city on the outskirts of Shanghai. But the land, at the marshy eastern tip of a massive, mostly undeveloped island at the mouth of the Yangtze River, was a migratory stop for one of the rarest birds in the world — the black-faced spoonbill, a gangly white creature with a long, flat beak.
McKinsey wanted to know if the developer, the Shanghai Industrial Investment Corporation, could bring businesses to the island without messing up thet bird habitat. The consultants thought Gutierrez's firm could figure it out. Gutierrez, an architect and urban designer for engineering and design giant Arup, didn't know anything about birds. But he was a veteran of several big-city design projects in his native Chile and something of a young star at Arup's London headquarters. The scope of the idea awed him. A whole new city? Were they serious? More important, could Arup get in on it? He quickly caught a flight to Shanghai.
Today Gutierrez and a team of Arup specialists from Europe, North America, and Asia are finalizing a plan for a scratch- built metropolis called Dongtan. Anywhere else in the world, it would have been a thought exercise, done up pretty for a design book or a museum show. But Shanghai's economy is growing three times faster than the US economy did at the height of the dotcom boom. More than 2,000 high-rises have gone up within city limits in the past decade. The city's most famous stretch of skyline, including the jewel-box-like Jin Mao Tower and the purple rocket-shaped Pearl TV Tower, was a rice paddy just 20 years ago. Now some 130 million people live within a two and a half hour drive of downtown. Even the wild ideas get built here.
Dongtan breaks ground later this year on a plot about the size of Manhattan on Chongming Island. The first condos and commercial space will hit the market by 2010, around the time a 12-mile bridge and tunnel combo and subway extension will link the city to Shanghai's new international airport (45 minutes away) and financial district (30 minutes). By 2050, Dongtan will have a half-million residents, more than Miami or Atlanta today.
That may count as a cozy little town in a country of 1.3 billion people. But Dongtan is a dramatic gambit, and not just because a whole city will rise, fully realized, from nothing. With Dongtan, Arup is testing a radical new approach to urban design, one that suggests cities across China and the rest of the developing world can actually get greener as they grow. "Norman Foster, Richard Rogers, SOM, HOK are all doing better or worse design," Gutierrez says, subtly dismissing some of the architecture world's biggest names (including at least one that angled for the Dongtan job). "But they're not addressing the central problem of this age — resource efficiency — and how it relates to cultural, social, and economic development."
Mao Tse-tung believed the natural world was all that stood between Communist China and its industrial future. His country, he said in a 1940 speech, "must use natural science to understand, conquer, and change nature." And conquer it did. Forests were razed, up to 90 percent of the trees in some provinces. The government, in a scheme to accelerate steel production, forced Beijing residents to smelt metal in hundreds of thousands of polluting backyard furnaces. New factories dumped untreated waste into the rivers until they turned a deep, noxious black. When China's economy began to take off in the 1980s, conditions got worse. Foreign firms put their most toxic manufacturing operations in China. Sudden prosperity, and a rush to boomtowns like Shanghai, drove energy demand well beyond what the grid could provide. Today, China opens an average of one new coal-fired power plant per week, the main reason it will pass the US in the next two years as the world's biggest source of CO2 emissions. Since 2001, China has increased its emissions more than every other industrialized country in the world combined.
The plan was never to pollute forever; it was to chase wealth at any cost and clean up later. And that made some sense. Even now, after three decades of rapid economic growth, more than 160 million Chinese still live on less than a dollar a day. The trouble is, environmental degradation has become a drag on China's development. The government revealed last year that environmental damage costs the economy $200 billion a year, a full 10 percent of China's GDP. The cost to public heath and quality of life may be even greater. Overcultivation, overgrazing, and massive timber consumption have turned a quarter of China's land into desert. Over 400 million Chinese drink contaminated water. When still air settles over Shanghai, the sky turns thick and white, the horizon the color of a nicotine stain. The government figures that 300,000 people die prematurely each year from polluted air. When I visited the neighborhood surrounding Shanghai's oldest power plant — a maze of narrow streets and tiny homes that seem piled one on top of the another — I caught a breath of warm air from a row of exhaust vents, coughed until my chest burned, and then gagged.
Arup believes good design can do something about this mess. Dongtan's master plan — hundreds of pages of maps, schematics, and data — has almost nothing to say about architectural style. Instead, it outlines the world's first green city, every block engineered in response to China's environmental crisis. It's like the source code for an urban operating system. "We're not focused on the form," Gutierrez explains. "We're focused on the performance of the form." He and his team imagine a city powered by local, renewable energy, with superefficient buildings clustered in dense, walkable neighborhoods; a recycling scheme that repurposes 90 percent of all waste; a network of high tech organic farms; and a ban on any vehicle that emits CO2.
From the beginning, the operation has been risky. Foreign architects can quickly lose control of their Chinese projects and lose face when developers decide to cut costs and redesign on the fly. Many glimmering Shanghai towers look like Tokyo on the outside but Moscow on the inside. And China loves its monuments. Dongtan could easily devolve into a Potemkin eco-village, a show-offy display of green technology that fails as a living, working community. "We were dubious, of course, at the beginning as to whether the client was really committed," Gutierrez says. And even if SIIC stayed idealistic, nobody had ever designed and built a green city before. Arup could get it wrong and simply push sprawl into one of the few remaining green spaces around Shanghai. But China is in a position to chart a smarter path, not just for its own exploding cities but for the booming urban hubs around the world — Dubai, Khartoum, Lagos, Mumbai, Rio de Janeiro — where populations are set to double in the next 30 years. "We thought Dongtan was a rare chance," Gutierrez says, "to demonstrate that growth could happen a different way."
When he sees Shanghai for the first time, in May 2004, Gutierrez is wide-eyed with excitement and wide-awake with jet lag. He meets an SIIC delegation downtown, and they drive an hour north, through Shanghai's brutal traffic, to the Yangtze River. There, the group sets off on a ferry for Dongtan.
Inside the crowded cabin, a television plays soap operas. Outside, men in baseball jackets and fake leather bombers line the railing and smoke. The water is a milky brown, full of silt from upriver that, about a millennium ago, began to pile up where the river and ocean currents meet — a sandbar that has grown into a 470-square-mile alluvial island.
The SIIC group drives Gutierrez through the island's biggest port, a short strip of low concrete boxes where locals sell vegetables, sugarcane, and cold drinks. Pedal-powered rickshaws outnumber automobiles, making Shanghai's neon swagger seem far away. They turn onto a narrow, newly paved road to Dongtan, and development disappears. Flat fields of bok choy and swampy rice paddies stretch to the horizon, crisscrossed by long irrigation canals carved out by banished Shanghai intellectuals during the Cultural Revolution. The site is gigantic. And except for the occasional, rickety shed, built for farmworkers who stay in the fields overnight, it's completely empty. Because Gutierrez came here to think about bird habitat, they drive to the marsh at the eastern edge of the island, a huge expanse of tall, golden grass that seems to extend over the horizon into the East China Sea.
Nearly all land in China is owned by the state. But SIIC, the second biggest builder in China, owns Dongtan. In the 1990s, when China's business climate was less liberal than it is today, many Chinese firms ran parallel businesses in Hong Kong, where it was easier to attract foreign capital. SIIC was the Shanghai mun icipal government's Hong Kong operation, a public-private pharmaceutical and real estate company. When most of Asia's economy tanked in the late 1990s — and Hong Kong had it especially rough — many of the businesses in that city went under. To replenish SIIC's shrinking assets, Shanghai gave the company a piece of Chongming Island. That land ownership allows SIIC an unusual degree of freedom to think longer-term and do something bold.
Shanghai's bureaucrats let it be known that Chongming Island must stay green, and SIIC agreed. The developer commissioned a series of ecological studies. Then it invited Philip Johnson, the late icon of American architecture, to design a master plan. SIIC showed Johnson's staff the site and briefed them on the environmental constraints. For months, designers flew back and forth to the site, making plans for a leafy, low-density garden suburb built around a huge man-made lake. Finally Johnson's team arrived in Shanghai to present its plan — and found it was not alone. London-based Atkins and Paris-based Architecture-Studio, both giants in the architecture world, had also created master plans for SIIC. Nobody knew it was going to be a competition. Dinner afterward was awkward, and none of the proposals went anywhere.
Part of the problem was that SIIC wasn't sure yet what it wanted. Its people talked about Dongtan as an eco-city, but they also talked about it as a quaint green suburb or as Shanghai's Hamptons, a place for the city's wealthy to flee for the weekend. They seemed to have good intentions but little direction.
That night of Gutierrez's trip to Chongming Island, Arup's team huddled in their Shanghai hotel rooms, calling colleagues in London and Hong Kong. They had decided to do the bird thing for McKinsey, but they would also shop some bigger ideas directly to SIIC. Dongtan could be the kind of grand project Arup had been looking for.
Founded by engineer Ove Arup in the 1940s, London-based Arup has 86 offices in more than 30 countries and a staff of nearly 9,000, including 1,500 in China. The firm dispatches engineers and architects but also economists, environmental scientists, MBAs, energy experts, transportation gurus, and cultural anthropologists to projects around the globe. Still, its work is often anonymous: When a famous architect designs a dramatic skin for some big building, Arup designs the guts. It engineered the overlapping shells of the Sydney Opera House and figured out how to turn a building inside out when it worked on the Centre Pompidou in Paris.
Gutierrez, though, was part of an ambitious new initiative at Arup, a kind of skunkworks, organized around something the firm called "integrated urbanism." Instead of focusing on something like water or stadiums or waste management, this team would pull expertise from every corner of the firm. If the idea worked, Arup could get in earlier on big planning projects. This way it could help design cities that work better — not just as grids or transport networks or skylines but as ecosystems engineered from the start to foil gridlock, energy waste, pollution, even economic inequality. Instead of sketching out the look of a future city, Gutierrez would avoid form altogether. He'd focus on coming up with the rules and standards Arup would follow to deliver a city. SIIC was intrigued.
Later that May, Gutierrez joined a team back at Arup's headquarters near the University of London, across an old stone courtyard from a house where Virginia Woolf and George Bernard Shaw had once lived (at different times). There was Roger Wood, a manager who joined Gutierrez in Shanghai; an environment expert from the Newcastle office; a pair of economists; some urban designers; and of course, the bird guy. They were also about to get a boss: Arup hired Peter Head, a prominent member of the London Sustainable Development Commission and green guru for London's Olympic Construction task force, as the firm's first director of Planning and Integrated Urbanism. He would negotiate a contract to design Dongtan. Gutierrez and the rest of the team had to turn abstract concepts of urbanism into a real city. The team began to gather around a long table and debate. Gutierrez would usually lead the conversation, sketching the group's ideas on copier paper.
Their first decision was big. Dongtan needed more people. Way more. Shanghai's planning bureau figured 50,000 people should live on the site — they assumed a green island should not be crowded — and the other international architects had agreed, drafting Dongtan as an American-style suburb with low-rise condos scattered across the plot and lots of lawns and parks in between. "It's all very nice to have little houses in a green field," Gutierrez says. But that would be an environmental disaster. If neighborhoods are spread out, then people need cars to get around. If population is low, then public transportation is a money loser.
But how many more people? Double? Triple? The team found research on energy consumption in cities around the world, plotted on a curve according to population density. Up to about 50 residents per acre, roughly equivalent to Stockholm or Copenhagen, per capita energy use falls fast. People walk and bike more, public transit makes economic sense, and there are ways to make heating and cooling more efficient. But then the curve flattens out. Pack in 120 people per acre, like Singapore, or 300 people, like Hong Kong, and the energy savings are negligible. Dongtan, the team decided, should try to hit that sweet spot around Stockholm.
Next, they had to figure out how high to build. A density rate of 50 people per acre could mean a lot of low buildings, or a handful of skyscrapers, or something in between. Here, the land made the decision for them. Dongtan's soil is squishy. Any building taller than about eight stories would need expensive work at the foundation to keep it upright. To give the place some variety and open up paths for summer wind and natural light, they settled on a range of four to eight stories across the city. Then, using CAD software, they started dropping blocks of buildings on the site and counting heads.
The results were startling. They could bump up Dongtan's population 10 times, to 500,000, and still build on a smaller share of the site than any of the other planners had suggested, leaving 65 percent of the land open for farms, parks, and wildlife habitat. A rough outline of the city, a real eco-city, began to take shape: a reasonably dense urban middle, with smart breaks for green space, all surrounded by farms, parks, and unspoiled wetland. Instead of sprawling out, the city would grow in a line along a public transit corridor.
That was pretty much it for the easy stuff.
Arup had to figure out how to keep Dongtan above water. Chongming Island is flat and barely higher than sea level. The previous planners, thinking defensively, had pulled development back to the middle of the site, imagining Dongtan as an island city with no harbor, no waterfront caf s, no ocean-view condos. Gutierrez thought that was kind of a waste.
"We went back to the site," he recalls, "and, being completely ignorant Westerners, we asked the client, 'Have you seen Venice?'" Gutierrez had been sketching Venice's waterways and floodgates. "They said, very politely, 'Yeah, we know about Venice,'" Gutierrez recalls, smiling sheepishly. "Then they took us to see these fantastic, beautiful water towns in the Yangtze River Delta that are much older. They have decks and terraces and promenades that are very close to the water," Gutierrez says. "In one part of a town, they developed a pond to control water levels, in another they had a wider canal, in another they developed a lake. They had a much more fine-tuned understanding of how to manage water than the Italians did."
Inspired by those ancient Chinese water towns, Gutierrez began drawing canals in one zone, ponds in another, and a big lake in a third. He designed courtyards and lawns to drain away from buildings. And he created flood cells within the city, like chambers in a submarine, so if Dongtan got slammed by a once-in-a-century storm, the seawater would stay in a single cell. At the water's edge, instead of a high levee, he drew a gentle hill that would recede into a wide wetland basin — a park, bird habitat, and natural storm barrier.
Next, the city needed green power. But the planning process grew complicated. A city is a huge mess of dependent variables. The right recycling facility can turn trash into kilowatts. The right power plant can convert waste energy into heat. The right city map will encourage people to walk to the store instead of drive. "These are things people don't normally plan together," Gutierrez says.
They needed something they started calling an "integrated resource model," something to show how each change would ripple across the city plan. So Arup's programmers wrote software that stitched together databases detailing the inputs (say, the cost of photovoltaic panels) and outputs (electricity generated per panel) of any facility, process, product, and human activity on the island. If the team moves an office park a mile, the software can recalculate average walking distances for commuters, figure how many people will drive or take public transit instead of walk, and then add up the ultimate change in energy demand. Maybe more important, the software makes it easy to spot places where one process creates waste that another process could recycle. "Design was very trial-and-error," Gutierrez says. "The only thing we knew was that we wanted to connect things, to create virtuous cycles."
A power scheme started to take shape. Dongtan's plant would burn plant matter to drive a steam turbine and generate electricity. What to burn, though? They could have planted miscanthus, a tall, feathery grass. It sprouts fast and burns clean. But if Arup planted miscanthus fields, it would sacrifice lots of land to a single purpose. Then it struck them: rice husks. China already grows mountains of rice, and farmers just trash the husks. Dongtan could take a useless byproduct and use it to light the city.
Instead of building the plant far away and out of sight, Arup would put it up near the city center, capture waste heat, and pipe it throughout the town. With good insulation and smart design, the plant could heat and cool every building in Dongtan. "We can get something like 80 percent efficiency in our fuel conversion," says Chris Twinn, the Dongtan team's energy chief. "The Prius is probably only 20 percent efficient. The rest is wasted. Why are we satisfied with that?"
Between biomass, a big wind farm, and numerous tiny contributions to the grid — including photovoltaic panels and small wind turbines — Arup figured Dongtan could get 60 percent of its energy from renewable sources when the city opened in 2010, and 100 percent within 20 years.
As the plan expanded, so did Gutierrez's team, from about a dozen in May 2004 to more than 100 today. And as they pulled in new experts from around the firm, they saw new virtuous cycles. Arup investigated hollowing out the hills at the edge of the city and installing underground "plant factories" — stacked trays of organic crops, growing under solar-powered LEDs, that seem to yield as much as six times more produce per acre than conventional farming. Arup would run twin water networks throughout the city: one that supplies drinking water to kitchens and another that supplies treated waste water for toilet flushing and farm irrigation. Trucks delivering goods from across China would park at consolidation warehouses on the edge of the city, then load up shared, zero- emission delivery trucks to reduce traffic and save gas. Waste would be either recycled or gasified for energy, and the captured heat would be converted into more power; no more than 10 percent of the city's trash would be permitted to end up as landfill. To invite in cooling summer breezes, block winter winds, and reduce demand for heat and air-conditioning, they would position trees strategically and persuade the client to twist the city grid slightly off a traditional north-south axis (a feng shui idea that has become an almost inviolable rule of Chinese city planning). Meanwhile, traveling spoonbills would find their marshy grassland undisturbed — far from the center of town and sheltered from people and industry by a wide buffer of farmland.
Dongtan was looking less like a city, at least the urban resource hogs that exist today, and more like an ecosystem, a closed loop. "It's a green island that shows you can decouple economic development from environmental impact," Gutierrez says.
In October 2005, armed with a city design and a strategy to build it, Gutierrez, Head, and a handful of specialists returned to Shanghai and presented their plans to SIIC. Dongtan will go up in three phases, each one adding a new, mixed-use neighborhood, complete with condos, offices, and retail space that will all sprout up at once. Gutierrez cleverly designed each neighborhood with two downtowns: one at the center, modest and intimate, within easy walking distance from homes and offices, and one at the edge. The three at the edges will overlap and gradually grow into metropolitan Dongtan. "Our worst-case scenario is that Dongtan starts out as a tourism-based settlement," Gutierrez explains, "but grows over time to include other industries." Best-case scenario: China's huge market for renewable energy and Dongtan's bright-green reputation persuade clean technology firms to set up labs and commercial outposts in the city.
The presentation lasted a couple of hours. When it was over, SIIC's chair spoke. He liked Arup's plan a lot. But he wanted Dongtan to draw every bit of its power from local renewable energy starting the first day. "We had been very proud that we could get 60 percent of our energy from renewables!" Gutierrez says, smiling. "But the client said that's not good enough." Arup was thrilled — kind of. If anything, the firm expected pressure to simplify Dongtan, not to make it more ambitious.
The answer, the team decided, was building up the green power infrastructure faster and slashing energy demand further. A recent change in China's energy law would allow Dongtan's power company to sell surplus green energy to Shanghai's grid, justifying the expensive new hardware until the new city grew into its supply. Reducing demand was harder. But Arup hit upon a clever solution. Instead of hiding indecipherable energy meters behind buildings, it would put a simple meter in an obvious location like a kitchen or office. Residents could track their own use — and get regular reminders over SMS and email. Up to a reasonable limit, energy is pretty cheap. Go over and the price spikes.
SIIC approved Arup's master plan last summer: hundreds of pages covering everything from the permissible range of heat transfer through condo walls to the surface area of ponds and canals that must feature native aquatic plants. By the end of the year, builders will begin installing the city's infrastructure, and SIIC will hire architects to start planting buildings in Arup's ecosystem. Arup, meanwhile, is already considering a pair of modest Dongtan sequels — a small neighborhood outside Shanghai and a town near Beijing — and is working on several other green communities across China, plus one in St. Petersburg, Russia.
This year, for the first time in history, the majority of the world's population lives in cities. By 2050, two-thirds will call a city home. Most of that urban growth will happen in the developing world. "Tokyo, London, and New York are extremely interesting," says Ricky Burdett, director of the Cities project at the London School of Economics. "But their massive development has already happened — in London, 150 years ago, in New York, 100 years ago, in Tokyo, 50 years ago." Shanghai represents the forward edge of the planet's next urban explosion.
These new megacities could evolve into sprawling, polluting megaslums. Or they could define a new species of world city. Unlike New York or London, they are blank slates — less affluent, perhaps, but also free from legacy designs and technologies tailored to the world of the 19th and 20th centuries. That is a huge advantage. It took Boston 20 years and more than $14 billion just to reroute a freeway underground. New York can hardly install a second network of water pipes. Most of Los Angeles is too spread out for fast public transit or combined heat and power plants. And because these cities are so isolated from agricultural land, most of the food that locals eat gets shipped hundreds of miles. "Shanghai today is making 90 percent of the mistakes that American cities made," Burdett argues — spreading out, building up single-family homes, replacing naturally mixed-use neighborhoods with isolated zones for living, shopping, and working, and connecting it all with car travel. But fixing these problems is still possible.
If Dongtan lives up to expectations, it will serve as a model for cities across China and the rest of the developing world — cities that, given new tools, might leapfrog the environmental and public health costs that have always come with economic progress, a relationship Gutierrez calls "the nightmare of the 20th century." Even old American and European cities may find bits and pieces of Dongtan that they can use, especially when they redevelop industrial plots or build out at the edges. Arup would like to apply lessons from Dongtan to a pair of new developments in San Francisco and Napa County. Parts of urban Europe are approximately the right density for a combined heat and power system to work. London mayor Ken Livingstone visited Dongtan hoping to get inspiration for a huge zero-emission development about to break ground in East London.
"Shanghai will grow," Gutierrez says. "The question is how it will grow. We can program into its DNA a sustainable growth pattern. We have to make cities, as much as we can, future proof ."
Douglas McGray (mcgray@newamerica.net), a fellow at the New America Foundation, wrote about the designer of the $100 laptop in issue 14.08.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Last decade warmest on record, indicators in decline
Data 'screaming that the world is warming,' scientist says of annual report
updated 7/28/2010 4:34:09 PM ET
-WASHINGTON — Not only was the past decade the warmest on record, but climate indicators being tracked globally are worsening, scientists reported Wednesday in their annual "State of the Climate."
"A comprehensive review of key climate indicators confirms the world is warming and the past decade was the warmest" since recordkeeping began in 1870, declares the report, which was released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Compiled by more than 300 scientists from 48 countries, the report said its analysis of 10 indicators that are " clearly and directly related to surface temperatures, all tell the same story: Global warming is undeniable."
Concern about rising temperatures has been growing in recent years as atmospheric scientists report rising temperatures associated with greenhouse gases released into the air by industrial and other human processes. At the same time, some skeptics have questioned the conclusions.
The new report, the 20th in a series, focuses only on global warming and does not specify a cause.
"The evidence in this report would say unequivocally yes, there is no doubt," that the Earth is warming, said Tom Karl, the transitional director of the planned NOAA Climate Service.
Deke Arndt, chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch at the National Climatic Data Center, noted that the 1980s was the warmest decade up to that point, but each year in the 1990s was warmer than the '80s average.
That makes the '90s the warmest decade, he said.
But each year in the 2000s has been warmer than the '90s average, so the first 10 years of the 2000s is now the warmest decade on record.
The new report noted that continuing warming will threaten coastal cities, infrastructure, water supply, health and agriculture.
"At first glance, the amount of increase each decade — about a fifth of a degree Fahrenheit — may seem small," the report said.
"But," it adds, "the temperature increase of about 1 degree Fahrenheit experienced during the past 50 years has already altered the planet. Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are becoming more common and more intense."
Last month was the warmest June on record and this year has had the warmest average temperature for January-June since record keeping began, NOAA reported last week.
The new climate report, published as a supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, focused on 10 indicators of a warming world, seven which are increasing and three declining.
Rising over decades are average air temperature, the ratio of water vapor to air, ocean heat content, sea surface temperature, sea level, air temperature over the ocean and air temperature over land.
Indicators that are declining are snow cover, glaciers and sea ice.
The 10 were selected "because they were the most obviously related indicators of global temperature," explained Peter Thorne of the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites, who helped develop the list when at the British weather service, known as the Met Office.
"What this data is doing is, it is screaming that the world is warming," Thorne concluded.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Discuss: Last decade warmest on record, indicators in decline
444 total comments
Data 'screaming that the world is warming,' scientist says of annual report
“ There will undoubtably be a slew of comments from conservatives that these data are rigged, that all scientists are corrupt, that it was cold this winter where they live, and similar silly arguments trying to argue against global warming because they oppose cap and trade.
When I read that 7 of the 10 indicators had increased and 3 had declined, my first thought was that it was a split decision. But with the 3 in decline being snow cover, glaciers, and sea ice it's a (unfortunately) unanimous decision. The climate is warming. Of that there can be no doubt.
”
Expand Collapse joe mota, with 18Reply “ I don't care what the scientists say or how much evidence they provide. No amount of science can slay a good GOP talking point....
(sarcasm)
”
Expand Collapse DrowningGrover, with 13Reply “ until i see PROOF that its because of man that the planet is warming
Show me PROOF that this is a natural cycle otherwise you are just someone standing in the middle of the road at night saying "oh, look at the pretty lights coming straight at me."
To ignore the obvious is to be a fool of the Darwin kind.
”
Expand Collapse Ronko, with 12
updated 7/28/2010 4:34:09 PM ET
-WASHINGTON — Not only was the past decade the warmest on record, but climate indicators being tracked globally are worsening, scientists reported Wednesday in their annual "State of the Climate."
"A comprehensive review of key climate indicators confirms the world is warming and the past decade was the warmest" since recordkeeping began in 1870, declares the report, which was released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Compiled by more than 300 scientists from 48 countries, the report said its analysis of 10 indicators that are " clearly and directly related to surface temperatures, all tell the same story: Global warming is undeniable."
Concern about rising temperatures has been growing in recent years as atmospheric scientists report rising temperatures associated with greenhouse gases released into the air by industrial and other human processes. At the same time, some skeptics have questioned the conclusions.
The new report, the 20th in a series, focuses only on global warming and does not specify a cause.
"The evidence in this report would say unequivocally yes, there is no doubt," that the Earth is warming, said Tom Karl, the transitional director of the planned NOAA Climate Service.
Deke Arndt, chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch at the National Climatic Data Center, noted that the 1980s was the warmest decade up to that point, but each year in the 1990s was warmer than the '80s average.
That makes the '90s the warmest decade, he said.
But each year in the 2000s has been warmer than the '90s average, so the first 10 years of the 2000s is now the warmest decade on record.
The new report noted that continuing warming will threaten coastal cities, infrastructure, water supply, health and agriculture.
"At first glance, the amount of increase each decade — about a fifth of a degree Fahrenheit — may seem small," the report said.
"But," it adds, "the temperature increase of about 1 degree Fahrenheit experienced during the past 50 years has already altered the planet. Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are becoming more common and more intense."
Last month was the warmest June on record and this year has had the warmest average temperature for January-June since record keeping began, NOAA reported last week.
The new climate report, published as a supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, focused on 10 indicators of a warming world, seven which are increasing and three declining.
Rising over decades are average air temperature, the ratio of water vapor to air, ocean heat content, sea surface temperature, sea level, air temperature over the ocean and air temperature over land.
Indicators that are declining are snow cover, glaciers and sea ice.
The 10 were selected "because they were the most obviously related indicators of global temperature," explained Peter Thorne of the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites, who helped develop the list when at the British weather service, known as the Met Office.
"What this data is doing is, it is screaming that the world is warming," Thorne concluded.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Discuss: Last decade warmest on record, indicators in decline
444 total comments
Data 'screaming that the world is warming,' scientist says of annual report
“ There will undoubtably be a slew of comments from conservatives that these data are rigged, that all scientists are corrupt, that it was cold this winter where they live, and similar silly arguments trying to argue against global warming because they oppose cap and trade.
When I read that 7 of the 10 indicators had increased and 3 had declined, my first thought was that it was a split decision. But with the 3 in decline being snow cover, glaciers, and sea ice it's a (unfortunately) unanimous decision. The climate is warming. Of that there can be no doubt.
”
Expand Collapse joe mota, with 18Reply “ I don't care what the scientists say or how much evidence they provide. No amount of science can slay a good GOP talking point....
(sarcasm)
”
Expand Collapse DrowningGrover, with 13Reply “ until i see PROOF that its because of man that the planet is warming
Show me PROOF that this is a natural cycle otherwise you are just someone standing in the middle of the road at night saying "oh, look at the pretty lights coming straight at me."
To ignore the obvious is to be a fool of the Darwin kind.
”
Expand Collapse Ronko, with 12
Saturday, July 24, 2010
FPL site Environmental topics
Community
Community Investments
Community Outreach
Education Programs
Helping our
Customers in Need
Storm Center
Storm Center
Preparing for the Storm
During the Storm
After the Storm
Safety & Electricity
About Energy Diagnose Power Problem
Report a Power Issue
Ensuring Reliability
System Improvements Map
Power for Our Future
Getting Power to You
Safety & Electricity
Alternative Energy
Nuclear Power
Carbon Footprint
About FPL Florida Power & Light
Company Profile
News
NextEra Energy‚ Inc.
Florida Power & Light
NextEra Energy Resources
FPL Energy Services
FPL FiberNet
Sites
FPL Kids
Generation Clean
FPL Transmission Srv
FPL Web Taxi
EarthEra
Environment
FPL's Commitment
Environmental Education
Endangered Species
Crocodiles & Alligators
Manatees
Bald Eagles
Wood Storks
Sea Turtles
Panther
Exotic Species
Swamp Preservation
Links and Resources
Everglades Mitigation
What is Mitigation
Wetlands
Value of Wetlands
Environmental Benefits
Landowner Benefits
Plants and Animals
Vegetation Zone
Vegetative Systems
Endangered Plants
Protected Plants
Amphibians
Birds
Fish
Microinvertebrates
Reptiles
Terrestrial Mammals
Endangered Species
Vegetation Systems
Recycling Energy
Toxic Inventory Release
Toxic Release Report
Harvard Analysis
Recycling Energy in New Ways
Reduction in solid waste volume
A companywide initiative helps us manage all regulated materials and the hazardous wastes associated with recycling. These programs foster
recycling
re-using
refurbishing and
reducing.
Managing regulated materials
Regulated materials include
aerosol cans
lead acid
lithium and nickel-cadmium batteries
fluorescent bulbs
mercury-containing devices
paints
solvents and
oils.
Example: Discarded aerosol cans previously were sent to appropriate landfills. Now any remaining content is removed and sent to landfills and the cans are recycled. This alone has diverted more than 18,000 aerosol cans from landfills every year.
A new "waste exchange" initiative promises to further reduce our need to place unneeded products in landfills by offering them to other FPL facilities that may require them.
Alternatives to storing and/or sending materials to landfills
We look for any viable alternative to storing materials or sending them to a landfill.
Example: Ash generated by fuel combustion was stored on-site in an ash basin before it was sent to a landfill. Now we remove this potentially valuable material from our ash basins and process the material for re-use.
Use the table below to determine what is done with ash.
If the ash...
Then it...
contains vanadium, a material used in the production of steel
is sold to steel companies for re-use.
is unsuitable for vanadium recovery
may be used as aggregate for brick and concrete production, as well as in asphalt.
Cleaning up
A voluntary clean-up of non-hazardous industrial waste streams initiated in 1986 has removed 239,000 tons of industrial waste from 13 facilities. This clean-up helped us identify many innovative, efficient recycling techniques, such as recycling the wastes into concrete products. Materials that could not be recycled were placed in appropriate landfills.
Environmental impact
As a result of relationships that existed between FPL and other corporations more than 70 years ago, we are partially responsible for potential environmental impacts at 6 sites throughout Florida. We began evaluating and addressing environmental impacts at these sites in 1996 and have since removed more than
56,000 tons of coal-tar-impacted soils and debris
6,000 gallons of free product and
20,000 gallons of impacted groundwater from 3 sites.
In doing so, we developed a close working relationship with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, which we have maintained during all phases of these projects. The remaining 3 sites are being evaluated.
Community Investments
Community Outreach
Education Programs
Helping our
Customers in Need
Storm Center
Storm Center
Preparing for the Storm
During the Storm
After the Storm
Safety & Electricity
About Energy Diagnose Power Problem
Report a Power Issue
Ensuring Reliability
System Improvements Map
Power for Our Future
Getting Power to You
Safety & Electricity
Alternative Energy
Nuclear Power
Carbon Footprint
About FPL Florida Power & Light
Company Profile
News
NextEra Energy‚ Inc.
Florida Power & Light
NextEra Energy Resources
FPL Energy Services
FPL FiberNet
Sites
FPL Kids
Generation Clean
FPL Transmission Srv
FPL Web Taxi
EarthEra
Environment
FPL's Commitment
Environmental Education
Endangered Species
Crocodiles & Alligators
Manatees
Bald Eagles
Wood Storks
Sea Turtles
Panther
Exotic Species
Swamp Preservation
Links and Resources
Everglades Mitigation
What is Mitigation
Wetlands
Value of Wetlands
Environmental Benefits
Landowner Benefits
Plants and Animals
Vegetation Zone
Vegetative Systems
Endangered Plants
Protected Plants
Amphibians
Birds
Fish
Microinvertebrates
Reptiles
Terrestrial Mammals
Endangered Species
Vegetation Systems
Recycling Energy
Toxic Inventory Release
Toxic Release Report
Harvard Analysis
Recycling Energy in New Ways
Reduction in solid waste volume
A companywide initiative helps us manage all regulated materials and the hazardous wastes associated with recycling. These programs foster
recycling
re-using
refurbishing and
reducing.
Managing regulated materials
Regulated materials include
aerosol cans
lead acid
lithium and nickel-cadmium batteries
fluorescent bulbs
mercury-containing devices
paints
solvents and
oils.
Example: Discarded aerosol cans previously were sent to appropriate landfills. Now any remaining content is removed and sent to landfills and the cans are recycled. This alone has diverted more than 18,000 aerosol cans from landfills every year.
A new "waste exchange" initiative promises to further reduce our need to place unneeded products in landfills by offering them to other FPL facilities that may require them.
Alternatives to storing and/or sending materials to landfills
We look for any viable alternative to storing materials or sending them to a landfill.
Example: Ash generated by fuel combustion was stored on-site in an ash basin before it was sent to a landfill. Now we remove this potentially valuable material from our ash basins and process the material for re-use.
Use the table below to determine what is done with ash.
If the ash...
Then it...
contains vanadium, a material used in the production of steel
is sold to steel companies for re-use.
is unsuitable for vanadium recovery
may be used as aggregate for brick and concrete production, as well as in asphalt.
Cleaning up
A voluntary clean-up of non-hazardous industrial waste streams initiated in 1986 has removed 239,000 tons of industrial waste from 13 facilities. This clean-up helped us identify many innovative, efficient recycling techniques, such as recycling the wastes into concrete products. Materials that could not be recycled were placed in appropriate landfills.
Environmental impact
As a result of relationships that existed between FPL and other corporations more than 70 years ago, we are partially responsible for potential environmental impacts at 6 sites throughout Florida. We began evaluating and addressing environmental impacts at these sites in 1996 and have since removed more than
56,000 tons of coal-tar-impacted soils and debris
6,000 gallons of free product and
20,000 gallons of impacted groundwater from 3 sites.
In doing so, we developed a close working relationship with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, which we have maintained during all phases of these projects. The remaining 3 sites are being evaluated.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Save the Gulf Coast with Your Old Carpet
posted by Chaya, selected from Networx Jul 22, 2010 6:00 am
filed under: Conscious Consumer, Reduce, Recycle & Reuse, carpet, oil spill
< 1 of 2 >
Your stained shag carpet could stop the oil spill. At least one Florida county is using GeoHay, or bales of recycled carpet, to help protect the shoreline from some of the oil spilling into the Gulf from the broken BP oil well. GeoHay is a temporary erosion control device that lets water flow but absorbs suspended oil and other sediments. It is used as an alternative to hay bales and silt fences.
Synthetic carpet is non-biodegradable, which is usually a negative. It means it might sit in landfills for thousands of years. However, the non-sustainable, non-biodegradable nature of traditional carpet makes it perfect for a messy oil spill job. Straw and hay bales are less effective because they are biodegradable, and gradually erode as water breaks them down.
Officials in Walton County, in the eastern end of the Florida panhandle, are using GeoHay to protect dune lakes and white sand beaches. GeoHay is one of many creative uses of old carpet. The Carpet America Recovery Effort lists local carpet recycling sites here. The group boasts it kept more than 300 million pounds of used carpet out of landfills last year, turning 80 percent into other consumer products.
In addition to forming GeoHay for erosion control, used carpet fibers can be turned into construction materials, coal substitutes, plastics and new carpet.
NyconG is a reinforcing fiber for concrete and other construction materials. It is made from 100 percent recycled carpet and carpet backing. The manufacturer promises the material lowers production costs and may be eligible for tax credits and LEED credit savings.
Kela Energy uses recycled coal waste and used carpet fibers to create an alternative energy source that burns cleaner, hotter and more efficiently than coal.
Los Angeles Fiber and several other companies make new carpet from your old carpet. Other companies are making a variety of plastics, including bottles and car parts, from used carpet fibers.
< 1 of 2 > More on Conscious Consumer (200 articles available)
More from Chaya, selected from Networx (2 articles available)
14 comments
Save+the+Gulf+Coast+with+Your+Old+Carpet
Hello,
I saw this on Care2 and thought you'd like it as well.
Care2 is the largest and most trusted information and action site for people who care to make a difference in their lives and the world.
Care2.com send We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.
related stories
Safer Carpet Installation
(5 comments)
Carpets in Schools?
(5 comments)
Floor Coverings
(4 comments)
14 commentsadd your comment »
14 comments add your comment
Dianne D. says
Jul 23, 2010 9:05 AM
Good idea. Think before you toss. My cats can go out on my enclosed patio and they love to sit on carpet rugs when the concrete floor is cold. Better yet, get a box and line it with carpet and they love to snooze in it. Cut up the carpet for little throw rugs outside your doors. I use old carpet in the garage so I can wipe my feet before going through the kitchen door. I also use old carpeting outside the litter boxes to catch any loose litter on my cat's feet. I have very little litter on the floor and I pick up the carpet square and dump the litter back into the litter box.
Leah D. says
Jul 23, 2010 8:07 AM
This is awesome, it needs to be more widely publicized and brought into more cities!
Chealse B. says
Jul 23, 2010 2:23 AM
During the repainting some paint fеll on the carpet. I thought to throw the carpet, but i saw advert of after builders cleaning. They managed to save my carpet. So happy :)
Heather A. says
Jul 22, 2010 10:48 PM
Brilliant. In situations like these, a variety of creative ideas is the best solution.
Ann Eastman says
Jul 22, 2010 8:13 PM
Interesting article, thanks.
Erin R. says
Jul 22, 2010 5:25 PM
Thanks for sharing.
Liz Thompson says
Jul 22, 2010 3:51 PM
Thanks for the info...
Linus Schönnings says
Jul 22, 2010 3:36 PM
great
Gail Lopez says
Jul 22, 2010 9:59 AM
I love it! After years of discarding old carpet now there are so many ways to recycle it for further use, who knew? I wish there were legislation requiring carpet mfg cos., distributors and dealers to inform the public about recycling old carpet as well as correct disposal of the carpet being removed (I've seen where this stuff has ended up). I'll make a point of at least visiting the nearby neighborhoods on bulk trash removal week and speaking to our city's Green Advisory Board about what efforts they could suggest
filed under: Conscious Consumer, Reduce, Recycle & Reuse, carpet, oil spill
< 1 of 2 >
Your stained shag carpet could stop the oil spill. At least one Florida county is using GeoHay, or bales of recycled carpet, to help protect the shoreline from some of the oil spilling into the Gulf from the broken BP oil well. GeoHay is a temporary erosion control device that lets water flow but absorbs suspended oil and other sediments. It is used as an alternative to hay bales and silt fences.
Synthetic carpet is non-biodegradable, which is usually a negative. It means it might sit in landfills for thousands of years. However, the non-sustainable, non-biodegradable nature of traditional carpet makes it perfect for a messy oil spill job. Straw and hay bales are less effective because they are biodegradable, and gradually erode as water breaks them down.
Officials in Walton County, in the eastern end of the Florida panhandle, are using GeoHay to protect dune lakes and white sand beaches. GeoHay is one of many creative uses of old carpet. The Carpet America Recovery Effort lists local carpet recycling sites here. The group boasts it kept more than 300 million pounds of used carpet out of landfills last year, turning 80 percent into other consumer products.
In addition to forming GeoHay for erosion control, used carpet fibers can be turned into construction materials, coal substitutes, plastics and new carpet.
NyconG is a reinforcing fiber for concrete and other construction materials. It is made from 100 percent recycled carpet and carpet backing. The manufacturer promises the material lowers production costs and may be eligible for tax credits and LEED credit savings.
Kela Energy uses recycled coal waste and used carpet fibers to create an alternative energy source that burns cleaner, hotter and more efficiently than coal.
Los Angeles Fiber and several other companies make new carpet from your old carpet. Other companies are making a variety of plastics, including bottles and car parts, from used carpet fibers.
< 1 of 2 > More on Conscious Consumer (200 articles available)
More from Chaya, selected from Networx (2 articles available)
14 comments
Save+the+Gulf+Coast+with+Your+Old+Carpet
Hello,
I saw this on Care2 and thought you'd like it as well.
Care2 is the largest and most trusted information and action site for people who care to make a difference in their lives and the world.
Care2.com send We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.
related stories
Safer Carpet Installation
(5 comments)
Carpets in Schools?
(5 comments)
Floor Coverings
(4 comments)
14 commentsadd your comment »
14 comments add your comment
Dianne D. says
Jul 23, 2010 9:05 AM
Good idea. Think before you toss. My cats can go out on my enclosed patio and they love to sit on carpet rugs when the concrete floor is cold. Better yet, get a box and line it with carpet and they love to snooze in it. Cut up the carpet for little throw rugs outside your doors. I use old carpet in the garage so I can wipe my feet before going through the kitchen door. I also use old carpeting outside the litter boxes to catch any loose litter on my cat's feet. I have very little litter on the floor and I pick up the carpet square and dump the litter back into the litter box.
Leah D. says
Jul 23, 2010 8:07 AM
This is awesome, it needs to be more widely publicized and brought into more cities!
Chealse B. says
Jul 23, 2010 2:23 AM
During the repainting some paint fеll on the carpet. I thought to throw the carpet, but i saw advert of after builders cleaning. They managed to save my carpet. So happy :)
Heather A. says
Jul 22, 2010 10:48 PM
Brilliant. In situations like these, a variety of creative ideas is the best solution.
Ann Eastman says
Jul 22, 2010 8:13 PM
Interesting article, thanks.
Erin R. says
Jul 22, 2010 5:25 PM
Thanks for sharing.
Liz Thompson says
Jul 22, 2010 3:51 PM
Thanks for the info...
Linus Schönnings says
Jul 22, 2010 3:36 PM
great
Gail Lopez says
Jul 22, 2010 9:59 AM
I love it! After years of discarding old carpet now there are so many ways to recycle it for further use, who knew? I wish there were legislation requiring carpet mfg cos., distributors and dealers to inform the public about recycling old carpet as well as correct disposal of the carpet being removed (I've seen where this stuff has ended up). I'll make a point of at least visiting the nearby neighborhoods on bulk trash removal week and speaking to our city's Green Advisory Board about what efforts they could suggest
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Fireman’s Fund Steps Up Green Insurance
Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, the first green building insurance provider in the U.S., has added benefits to its Green Financial Incentive Coverage for customers who use grants, loans, or tax incentives to pay for energy-efficient renovations.
Since 2006 Fireman's Fund has offered insurance for both residential and commercial properties that are already certified through LEED or Green Globes, or for customers who would like to make their properties more green following a loss (see Insurer Offers Special Coverage for Green Buildings , EBN Nov. 2006). Under the new coverage, certified buildings are allowed to upgrade to the next level of certification through repairs after a loss, and covered upgrades now include power generation equipment, alternative water systems, and vegetated roofs. Coverage of vegetated roofs now includes other vegetated surfaces that help reduce heat island effects.
Fireman’s Fund has also consolidated its coverage of building commissioning, as well as adding an option for porous paving. More information is available at www.firemansfund.com.
– Emily Catacchio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 2006 Fireman's Fund has offered insurance for both residential and commercial properties that are already certified through LEED or Green Globes, or for customers who would like to make their properties more green following a loss (see Insurer Offers Special Coverage for Green Buildings , EBN Nov. 2006). Under the new coverage, certified buildings are allowed to upgrade to the next level of certification through repairs after a loss, and covered upgrades now include power generation equipment, alternative water systems, and vegetated roofs. Coverage of vegetated roofs now includes other vegetated surfaces that help reduce heat island effects.
Fireman’s Fund has also consolidated its coverage of building commissioning, as well as adding an option for porous paving. More information is available at www.firemansfund.com.
– Emily Catacchio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honda ready to plug-in
While Honda is still focused on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles as the future of the auto industry, the company is now a little less bearish on plug-in vehicles.
For some time we’ve known that Honda was working on both a full hybrid powertrain and even a Volt-like range extended plug-in vehicle, and now we know that Honda will bring two plug-in vehicles to market in 2012. One, a battery-powered electric vehicle, the other some kind of plug-in hybrid that is reportedly capable of achieving 136 mpg.
Until 2012, Integrated Motor Assisted mild hybrids, such as the Insight, will make up Honda’s hybrid portfolio.
Comment
I have a Toyots Prius and am currently getting 48.4 MPG. I was getting over 50 MPG last week but it has been so hot I have had to turn on the AC.
For some time we’ve known that Honda was working on both a full hybrid powertrain and even a Volt-like range extended plug-in vehicle, and now we know that Honda will bring two plug-in vehicles to market in 2012. One, a battery-powered electric vehicle, the other some kind of plug-in hybrid that is reportedly capable of achieving 136 mpg.
Until 2012, Integrated Motor Assisted mild hybrids, such as the Insight, will make up Honda’s hybrid portfolio.
Comment
I have a Toyots Prius and am currently getting 48.4 MPG. I was getting over 50 MPG last week but it has been so hot I have had to turn on the AC.
DOE-Backed Smart Metering Rejected in Maryland
The Public Service Commission of Maryland rejected implementation of “smart grid” metering proposed by Baltimore Gas & Electric (BGE) in June 2010. The commission based the rejection on fears of rate increases and tiered pricing that would increase costs for consumers.
Smart grid technologies have the potential to reduce strain on the power grid by increasing rates and thus decreasing demand at times of peak use, and even allowing utilities to reduce non-essential loads at those times. Reducing peak demand can reduce the need for new power plants, and reduce the use of dirtier, less-efficient plants that only come online to meet those demands. In areas directly affected by power plants, reduced smog can also be a benefit.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) saw Maryland as a large proving ground for smart grid technologies, and had promised a $200 million Smart Grid stimulus grant to BG&E in 2009, most of which was to fund the proposed smart metering program in Maryland. BG&E had expected $2.6 billion in benefits over 15 years. BG&E planned on charging consumers for the new meters through a surcharge; the Public Service Commission, charged with protecting consumers’ interests, is often reluctant to approve surcharges.
The commission has requested that BG&E’s proposal be revamped and resubmitted; its suggestions include in-home displays to warn customers of rate increases at peak times. However, DOE may take its funding to other states that can move faster, although the concerns being voiced in Maryland may crop up elsewhere.
– Emily Catacchio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smart grid technologies have the potential to reduce strain on the power grid by increasing rates and thus decreasing demand at times of peak use, and even allowing utilities to reduce non-essential loads at those times. Reducing peak demand can reduce the need for new power plants, and reduce the use of dirtier, less-efficient plants that only come online to meet those demands. In areas directly affected by power plants, reduced smog can also be a benefit.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) saw Maryland as a large proving ground for smart grid technologies, and had promised a $200 million Smart Grid stimulus grant to BG&E in 2009, most of which was to fund the proposed smart metering program in Maryland. BG&E had expected $2.6 billion in benefits over 15 years. BG&E planned on charging consumers for the new meters through a surcharge; the Public Service Commission, charged with protecting consumers’ interests, is often reluctant to approve surcharges.
The commission has requested that BG&E’s proposal be revamped and resubmitted; its suggestions include in-home displays to warn customers of rate increases at peak times. However, DOE may take its funding to other states that can move faster, although the concerns being voiced in Maryland may crop up elsewhere.
– Emily Catacchio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Clean Energy Fuels gets LA bus fueling contract
By Associated Press
June 28, 2010 | Comments (0)
3 Potentially Undervalued Stocks
3 Top Stocks at Half Price
BROWSE ALL CLNE ARTICLES
Clean Energy Fuels Corp., which provides natural gas for transportation vehicles, said Monday it received a new 10-year contract with Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority.
Under the contract, Clean Energy Fuels will upgrade and run compressed natural gas bus fueling facilities to support two METRO divisions. The facilities serve buses that run in the Los Angeles Central and South Bay divisions. The company said it will reconfigure and upgrade compressor equipment at stations that supply those fleets within next year.
Clean Energy Fuels said it expects to provide more than 9 million gallons of gas per year under the new contract. It said METRO will fund the upgrades from the economic stimulus package, formally called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
The company said METRO runs the biggest compressed natural gas bus fleet in the country, with more than 2,500 buses, or around 95 percent of its fleet. METRO runs buses on 191 routes in Los Angeles County.
June 28, 2010 | Comments (0)
3 Potentially Undervalued Stocks
3 Top Stocks at Half Price
BROWSE ALL CLNE ARTICLES
Clean Energy Fuels Corp., which provides natural gas for transportation vehicles, said Monday it received a new 10-year contract with Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority.
Under the contract, Clean Energy Fuels will upgrade and run compressed natural gas bus fueling facilities to support two METRO divisions. The facilities serve buses that run in the Los Angeles Central and South Bay divisions. The company said it will reconfigure and upgrade compressor equipment at stations that supply those fleets within next year.
Clean Energy Fuels said it expects to provide more than 9 million gallons of gas per year under the new contract. It said METRO will fund the upgrades from the economic stimulus package, formally called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
The company said METRO runs the biggest compressed natural gas bus fleet in the country, with more than 2,500 buses, or around 95 percent of its fleet. METRO runs buses on 191 routes in Los Angeles County.
Natural Gas Vehicles: Viable Alternative to Oil-Based Car Fuels?
Posted Jun 28th 2010 5:10PM
by Joseph Lazzaro
Filed under: Commodities, Oil
BP Plc.'s (BP) Deepwater Horizen oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico -- the nation's worst spill in the modern era -- may increase interest in alternative transport fuels for cars and trucks. And a leading contender is: natural gas.
Domestic, cleaner, abundant, and (so far) cheaper than oil, natural gas has the potential to displace a significant amount of oil as a transport fuel.
Westport Innovations (WPRT) is one publicly-traded company that sees a bright future for natural gas in the commercial truck sector, among other transport, industrial, and power generation applications.
Utilities who operate electric power generation plants are already turning to natural gas as a cleaner fuel than coal. Likewise with home/commercial heating -- assuming natural gas remains cheap, the energy form will likely see increased use for heating in the decade. Natural gas already is the dominant form for home heat in the Midwest U.S.
But getting the civilian car market to convert to natural gas will be struggle. First, the filling station network would have expand vastly. A central filling station fits the bill for bus fleets or truck fleets, but widespread civilian use of natgas would literally require a natural gas filling station network almost as large as the current gasoline station network. More than likely, what will follow is a gradual increase in natural gas filling stations.
Further, natural gas vehicle designs are being refined to accommodate natural gas' storage requirements. Natural gas, whether compressed or liquefied, must be stored in cylinders, and these were initially placed in the trunk, displacing, to the dismay of drivers, valuable carrying/storage space. New vehicles are placing the tanks under the vehicle frame, which takes advantage of dead space, and leaves the trunk free.
Energy Analysis: The alternative transportation fuel market remains up for grabs. Electric cars, natural gas, and fuel cells are vying for this space, and the winner will likely be the lowest-cost, most-convenient, scalable energy form.
by Joseph Lazzaro
Filed under: Commodities, Oil
BP Plc.'s (BP) Deepwater Horizen oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico -- the nation's worst spill in the modern era -- may increase interest in alternative transport fuels for cars and trucks. And a leading contender is: natural gas.
Domestic, cleaner, abundant, and (so far) cheaper than oil, natural gas has the potential to displace a significant amount of oil as a transport fuel.
Westport Innovations (WPRT) is one publicly-traded company that sees a bright future for natural gas in the commercial truck sector, among other transport, industrial, and power generation applications.
Utilities who operate electric power generation plants are already turning to natural gas as a cleaner fuel than coal. Likewise with home/commercial heating -- assuming natural gas remains cheap, the energy form will likely see increased use for heating in the decade. Natural gas already is the dominant form for home heat in the Midwest U.S.
But getting the civilian car market to convert to natural gas will be struggle. First, the filling station network would have expand vastly. A central filling station fits the bill for bus fleets or truck fleets, but widespread civilian use of natgas would literally require a natural gas filling station network almost as large as the current gasoline station network. More than likely, what will follow is a gradual increase in natural gas filling stations.
Further, natural gas vehicle designs are being refined to accommodate natural gas' storage requirements. Natural gas, whether compressed or liquefied, must be stored in cylinders, and these were initially placed in the trunk, displacing, to the dismay of drivers, valuable carrying/storage space. New vehicles are placing the tanks under the vehicle frame, which takes advantage of dead space, and leaves the trunk free.
Energy Analysis: The alternative transportation fuel market remains up for grabs. Electric cars, natural gas, and fuel cells are vying for this space, and the winner will likely be the lowest-cost, most-convenient, scalable energy form.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Dammed if you do
Jul 4th 2010, 9:17 by Banyan
I AM in Yunnan in south-west China, where the biggest floods in a dozen years have ended a brutal long drought. For months here in Xishuangbanna the Mekong had sauntered lazy and green towards the border with Laos, too shallow for river trade. Now it is a roiling brown, and the cargo boats throw up a huge bow wave as they inch upriver. The timber yards in Xishuangbanna are filling up again with vast trees cut out from Laos’s virgin forests and openly smuggled across the border to be turned into the grotesque supersized furniture beloved of China’s brash new rich.
But I have come to learn about China’s plans for building dams. It’s not as easy as I thought. Three great rivers—the Salween, the Mekong and the Yangzi—come roaring out of the Tibetan plateau and tumble down through northern Yunnan in steep parallel gorges, each a mountain ridge apart. Further south they start to go their different ways before reaching the sea in very different places: the Salween in Myanmar, the Mekong in Vietnam and the Yangzi near Shanghai.
China has hugely ambitious plans for hydropower. Just above Xishuangbanna the new Jinghong dam has just started working. Further up the Mekong, Xiaowan dam is being built. When complete, it will be the highest arch dam in the world, and China’s biggest hydropower project after the giant Three Gorges dam. The reservoir behind it is already filling up. At least a dozen other projects are either planned or under construction.
More than that, however, little is known. The government puts out next to no information. Even Chinese academics in favour of hydropower complain that nearly all information to do with these rivers, even the amount of rain that reaches them, is treated as a state secret.
Those who oppose the dam-building on environmental grounds, or out of concern for perhaps 500,000 locals, mainly ethnic minorities, who are being displaced and forcibly resettled, ask that their names not be published. The Chinese media rarely touch the subject. The downstream countries of Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, which have seen a sharp drop in Mekong levels in recent years, complain that China neither consults nor informs about what it’s up to. For all that it preaches harmony and good neighbourliness, China comes across as a regional bully.
China denies the critics’ charge that it is responsible for reducing the Mekong’s flow downriver. It blames the drought instead. The truth lies somewhere in between. For while it is true that less than one-sixth of the total Mekong water catchment is in China, that flow is critical to neighbours during the dry season. China has certainly held back some of the dry-season flow.
The past month's monsoon rains will draw some of the criticism’s sting. So too, perhaps, will a possible easing of Chinese secrecy. In an unprecedented gesture of openness, last month China invited diplomats from Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam to view both Xiaowan and Jinghong dams. I had less luck. Near Jinghong nervous policemen ordered me to leg it before I got so much as a glimpse of the structure.
Oldest first Newest first Readers' most recommended 1-4 of 4
tocharian wrote: Jul 5th 2010 12:19 GMT What China is getting out of Laotian natural resources is minor compared to what they are getting out of Burma (gas, timber, electricity, jade, minerals etc.). Chinese (state-run) companies are building dams on the upper reaches of the Irrawaddy which actually has its source inside Burma. The corrupt ruling military junta in Burma is easily bribed and controlled by Peking. My prediction: the Irrawaddy dolphins (a rare species) will become extinct within the next decade.
happyfish18 wrote: Jul 8th 2010 1:19 GMT In the era of Climate change, people living in Yunnan and the Mekong Salween region downstream will face periods of long drought and great flood. Dams will be the only solution to regulate the fluctuations, and the people in Yunnan and other countries should be thankful that China has the wisdom, capital and technology resources to implement the great plan like what Joseph far-sightedness did in ancient Egypt.
BS Detector wrote: Jul 9th 2010 12:48 GMT "For all that it preaches harmony and good neighbourliness, China comes across as a regional bully."
Anyone who really believes that BS about harmony is naive. China's neighbors certainly don't.
Recommend (12)PermalinkReport abuse
Devils Advocate_2 wrote: Jul 9th 2010 7:35 GMT [BS Detector wrote:
Jul 9th 2010 12:48 GMT
"For all that it preaches harmony and good neighbourliness, China comes across as a regional bully."
Anyone who really believes that BS about harmony is naive. China's neighbors certainly don't.]
So are those who believe the BS about nuclear non-proliferation. North Korea and Iran have proved that they are not naive.
I AM in Yunnan in south-west China, where the biggest floods in a dozen years have ended a brutal long drought. For months here in Xishuangbanna the Mekong had sauntered lazy and green towards the border with Laos, too shallow for river trade. Now it is a roiling brown, and the cargo boats throw up a huge bow wave as they inch upriver. The timber yards in Xishuangbanna are filling up again with vast trees cut out from Laos’s virgin forests and openly smuggled across the border to be turned into the grotesque supersized furniture beloved of China’s brash new rich.
But I have come to learn about China’s plans for building dams. It’s not as easy as I thought. Three great rivers—the Salween, the Mekong and the Yangzi—come roaring out of the Tibetan plateau and tumble down through northern Yunnan in steep parallel gorges, each a mountain ridge apart. Further south they start to go their different ways before reaching the sea in very different places: the Salween in Myanmar, the Mekong in Vietnam and the Yangzi near Shanghai.
China has hugely ambitious plans for hydropower. Just above Xishuangbanna the new Jinghong dam has just started working. Further up the Mekong, Xiaowan dam is being built. When complete, it will be the highest arch dam in the world, and China’s biggest hydropower project after the giant Three Gorges dam. The reservoir behind it is already filling up. At least a dozen other projects are either planned or under construction.
More than that, however, little is known. The government puts out next to no information. Even Chinese academics in favour of hydropower complain that nearly all information to do with these rivers, even the amount of rain that reaches them, is treated as a state secret.
Those who oppose the dam-building on environmental grounds, or out of concern for perhaps 500,000 locals, mainly ethnic minorities, who are being displaced and forcibly resettled, ask that their names not be published. The Chinese media rarely touch the subject. The downstream countries of Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, which have seen a sharp drop in Mekong levels in recent years, complain that China neither consults nor informs about what it’s up to. For all that it preaches harmony and good neighbourliness, China comes across as a regional bully.
China denies the critics’ charge that it is responsible for reducing the Mekong’s flow downriver. It blames the drought instead. The truth lies somewhere in between. For while it is true that less than one-sixth of the total Mekong water catchment is in China, that flow is critical to neighbours during the dry season. China has certainly held back some of the dry-season flow.
The past month's monsoon rains will draw some of the criticism’s sting. So too, perhaps, will a possible easing of Chinese secrecy. In an unprecedented gesture of openness, last month China invited diplomats from Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam to view both Xiaowan and Jinghong dams. I had less luck. Near Jinghong nervous policemen ordered me to leg it before I got so much as a glimpse of the structure.
Oldest first Newest first Readers' most recommended 1-4 of 4
tocharian wrote: Jul 5th 2010 12:19 GMT What China is getting out of Laotian natural resources is minor compared to what they are getting out of Burma (gas, timber, electricity, jade, minerals etc.). Chinese (state-run) companies are building dams on the upper reaches of the Irrawaddy which actually has its source inside Burma. The corrupt ruling military junta in Burma is easily bribed and controlled by Peking. My prediction: the Irrawaddy dolphins (a rare species) will become extinct within the next decade.
happyfish18 wrote: Jul 8th 2010 1:19 GMT In the era of Climate change, people living in Yunnan and the Mekong Salween region downstream will face periods of long drought and great flood. Dams will be the only solution to regulate the fluctuations, and the people in Yunnan and other countries should be thankful that China has the wisdom, capital and technology resources to implement the great plan like what Joseph far-sightedness did in ancient Egypt.
BS Detector wrote: Jul 9th 2010 12:48 GMT "For all that it preaches harmony and good neighbourliness, China comes across as a regional bully."
Anyone who really believes that BS about harmony is naive. China's neighbors certainly don't.
Recommend (12)PermalinkReport abuse
Devils Advocate_2 wrote: Jul 9th 2010 7:35 GMT [BS Detector wrote:
Jul 9th 2010 12:48 GMT
"For all that it preaches harmony and good neighbourliness, China comes across as a regional bully."
Anyone who really believes that BS about harmony is naive. China's neighbors certainly don't.]
So are those who believe the BS about nuclear non-proliferation. North Korea and Iran have proved that they are not naive.
A place in the sun
The scientists in “climategate” did not fudge the data, a report finds
Apr 15th 2010
RON OXBURGH, breezily pushing his bicycle through a clot of journalists outside the press briefing he had just given, is a busy man happy to hurry. Critics of his investigation into the scientific probity of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia will hold that haste against him. In his time Lord Oxburgh has been head of the earth sciences department at Cambridge, chief scientific adviser to Britain’s defence ministry and, briefly, chairman of Shell. In March he was asked to lead an inquiry into the CRU’s main scientific findings, a matter of much debate ever since apparently hacked e-mails from the unit were made public less than five months ago. That he has reported so soon, and in a way that supports the CRU researchers, will be seen by many critics as de facto evidence of a whitewash.
Lord Oxburgh and his colleagues were not concerned with whether CRU’s scientific findings, which are based on records of temperature change from instruments and natural proxies, were correct. They were looking to see if the analysis had been biased and manipulated.
The inquiry panel looked at 11 CRU publications from the past 20 years, spent days talking to the researchers and looking at other documentation, and concluded that if there was any malpractice at CRU they probably would have found it. They found no such thing. Instead they found “dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers ill-prepared for public attention”.
The panel did express considerable surprise at the fact that the unit did not collaborate closely with professional statisticians. This is despite the fact that their work was “basically all statistics”, as one member of the panel, statistician David Hand, of Imperial College, London, put it. The report found that the CRU scientists would, had they been more statistically au fait, have done some things differently. The panel doubted that better methods would have materially changed the results.
Bloggers and others, mostly outside academia, who criticise CRU’s work and other climate science tend to lay much stress on statistical shortcomings. Dr Hand, who has a particular interest in scientific and financial fraud, has read a lot of this work. Dr Hand admires the meticulous work of Steve McIntyre, a mining consultant and blogger, who unearthed statistical problems in another climate analysis. This was a 1998 paper, not produced by CRU, that is now known as “the hockey stick”. Those problems served to enhance the prominence of recent warming in a thousand-year reconstruction of the northern hemisphere’s temperature, and have become a cause célèbre among sceptics.
When the Oxburgh report refers to the possibility of “inappropriate statistical tools…producing misleading results” in climate science, it is the hockey stick that it has in mind. But Dr Hand sees no evidence of anything as worrying as this in the CRU work. His concerns centred mostly on questions about the selection of data sets and the need for studies that showed how sensitive the results were to different selections of data. These are, in effect, what some critics are offering (though with what the report calls “a rather selective and uncharitable approach”), and the antagonism irritates Dr Hand. “What I want to do”, he says, “is bang their heads together and say ‘Sit down together and work out what’s going on’.”
Although the panel said the CRU scientists were careful with caveats, people who subsequently made use of their results, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sometimes oversimplified issues, underplaying possible errors. It also noted that the CRU should have archived data and algorithms better, but that this was a conclusion more easily drawn in hindsight. Having been in both academia and industry, Lord Oxburgh said he has no doubt that in industry, where companies, not researchers, own the data, the record-keeping would have been better, but that the team would have done much less good research. And looking back on his own academic work he showed a certain solidarity with his subject’s sloppiness: “I’m very grateful that the isotopic composition of helium has not become a key matter of public interest.”
Apr 15th 2010
RON OXBURGH, breezily pushing his bicycle through a clot of journalists outside the press briefing he had just given, is a busy man happy to hurry. Critics of his investigation into the scientific probity of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia will hold that haste against him. In his time Lord Oxburgh has been head of the earth sciences department at Cambridge, chief scientific adviser to Britain’s defence ministry and, briefly, chairman of Shell. In March he was asked to lead an inquiry into the CRU’s main scientific findings, a matter of much debate ever since apparently hacked e-mails from the unit were made public less than five months ago. That he has reported so soon, and in a way that supports the CRU researchers, will be seen by many critics as de facto evidence of a whitewash.
Lord Oxburgh and his colleagues were not concerned with whether CRU’s scientific findings, which are based on records of temperature change from instruments and natural proxies, were correct. They were looking to see if the analysis had been biased and manipulated.
The inquiry panel looked at 11 CRU publications from the past 20 years, spent days talking to the researchers and looking at other documentation, and concluded that if there was any malpractice at CRU they probably would have found it. They found no such thing. Instead they found “dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers ill-prepared for public attention”.
The panel did express considerable surprise at the fact that the unit did not collaborate closely with professional statisticians. This is despite the fact that their work was “basically all statistics”, as one member of the panel, statistician David Hand, of Imperial College, London, put it. The report found that the CRU scientists would, had they been more statistically au fait, have done some things differently. The panel doubted that better methods would have materially changed the results.
Bloggers and others, mostly outside academia, who criticise CRU’s work and other climate science tend to lay much stress on statistical shortcomings. Dr Hand, who has a particular interest in scientific and financial fraud, has read a lot of this work. Dr Hand admires the meticulous work of Steve McIntyre, a mining consultant and blogger, who unearthed statistical problems in another climate analysis. This was a 1998 paper, not produced by CRU, that is now known as “the hockey stick”. Those problems served to enhance the prominence of recent warming in a thousand-year reconstruction of the northern hemisphere’s temperature, and have become a cause célèbre among sceptics.
When the Oxburgh report refers to the possibility of “inappropriate statistical tools…producing misleading results” in climate science, it is the hockey stick that it has in mind. But Dr Hand sees no evidence of anything as worrying as this in the CRU work. His concerns centred mostly on questions about the selection of data sets and the need for studies that showed how sensitive the results were to different selections of data. These are, in effect, what some critics are offering (though with what the report calls “a rather selective and uncharitable approach”), and the antagonism irritates Dr Hand. “What I want to do”, he says, “is bang their heads together and say ‘Sit down together and work out what’s going on’.”
Although the panel said the CRU scientists were careful with caveats, people who subsequently made use of their results, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sometimes oversimplified issues, underplaying possible errors. It also noted that the CRU should have archived data and algorithms better, but that this was a conclusion more easily drawn in hindsight. Having been in both academia and industry, Lord Oxburgh said he has no doubt that in industry, where companies, not researchers, own the data, the record-keeping would have been better, but that the team would have done much less good research. And looking back on his own academic work he showed a certain solidarity with his subject’s sloppiness: “I’m very grateful that the isotopic composition of helium has not become a key matter of public interest.”
Climate controversies
Flawed scientists - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change needs reform. The case for climate action does not
Jul 8th 2010
EIGHT months after a trove of e-mails from climate researchers appeared on the internet, yet another inquiry into “climategate” reported its findings on July 7th. Two days earlier the Dutch environmental-assessment agency announced the results of a report it had been asked to produce on possible errors in the most recent review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Neither report does anything to weaken the case for acting to limit carbon emissions.
Greenhouse gases still warm planets, carbon dioxide is still a greenhouse gas and the amount of it in the Earth’s atmosphere is still shooting up. The temperature rose over the 20th century in a way that follows from these basic truths. Other mechanisms at play in the climate complicate the issue, but none of them offers a remotely satisfactory alternative explanation for the temperature rise. It is impossible to say with certainty how bad the 21st century’s heating will be, but there is a large chance of it getting hot enough to do harm, and a far from trivial chance of things turning catastrophic. This makes moving away from fossil fuels a global priority.
Yet the science of climate change has seemed to be derailed by climategate and the discovery of some errors in IPCC reports, even the gravest of which come far short of undermining its conclusions. Part of the explanation is no doubt a noxious campaign against the credibility of environmental science in general, and climate science in particular; the internet has allowed the doubt thus manufactured to go viral. But the problem also stems from the failings of climate scientists themselves, and the institutions they work in.
The controversies in climate science: Science behind closed doors
Jul 8th 2010. They have too often mistaken real doubts for scurrilous attacks, and relied on mutual reinforcement rather than open debate, on authority rather than argument. The IPCC, chaired by Rajendra Pachauri, should by its procedures and example do much to help with this. Unfortunately, it has allowed itself to become part of the problem. That the panel’s mistakes and questionable judgments almost all make the picture more gloomy, not less, reinforces a widespread worry that some of the authors are policy advocates as well as scholars (see article). Being linked to Al Gore through a Nobel peace prize has not helped.
Though transparent in some ways, the IPCC is woefully opaque in others. Depending as it does on expert judgment, the bona fides of its authors—the next batch, all 831 of them, was named in June—is crucially important. Yet their selection from national lists of nominees goes on entirely behind closed doors. This has led to a perception that points of view that do not hew to some sort of party line are being excluded.
A post-Pachauri panel
A better set-up could help. At present, the IPCC lacks a full-time chair (Dr Pachauri continues to run a large energy-research institute in India). It does not have the resources needed to support its volunteer authors. It lacks clear standards for judging conflicts of interest and an independent ombudsman.
The governments which run the IPCC will meet in South Korea in October. They should use the opportunity to begin a full reappraisal of what they and their citizens want from the panel in terms of timeliness, transparency and trust, and how to get it; if this means pausing the current assessment round, then so be it. They should give the panel new staff, resources and rules. And they should look at a range of candidates for a new position as the full-time chair. Dr Pachauri has been a staunch defender of the panel as it is rather than an advocate for reform that would improve it. He is not the man to carry out the changes it badly needs
Jul 8th 2010
EIGHT months after a trove of e-mails from climate researchers appeared on the internet, yet another inquiry into “climategate” reported its findings on July 7th. Two days earlier the Dutch environmental-assessment agency announced the results of a report it had been asked to produce on possible errors in the most recent review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Neither report does anything to weaken the case for acting to limit carbon emissions.
Greenhouse gases still warm planets, carbon dioxide is still a greenhouse gas and the amount of it in the Earth’s atmosphere is still shooting up. The temperature rose over the 20th century in a way that follows from these basic truths. Other mechanisms at play in the climate complicate the issue, but none of them offers a remotely satisfactory alternative explanation for the temperature rise. It is impossible to say with certainty how bad the 21st century’s heating will be, but there is a large chance of it getting hot enough to do harm, and a far from trivial chance of things turning catastrophic. This makes moving away from fossil fuels a global priority.
Yet the science of climate change has seemed to be derailed by climategate and the discovery of some errors in IPCC reports, even the gravest of which come far short of undermining its conclusions. Part of the explanation is no doubt a noxious campaign against the credibility of environmental science in general, and climate science in particular; the internet has allowed the doubt thus manufactured to go viral. But the problem also stems from the failings of climate scientists themselves, and the institutions they work in.
The controversies in climate science: Science behind closed doors
Jul 8th 2010. They have too often mistaken real doubts for scurrilous attacks, and relied on mutual reinforcement rather than open debate, on authority rather than argument. The IPCC, chaired by Rajendra Pachauri, should by its procedures and example do much to help with this. Unfortunately, it has allowed itself to become part of the problem. That the panel’s mistakes and questionable judgments almost all make the picture more gloomy, not less, reinforces a widespread worry that some of the authors are policy advocates as well as scholars (see article). Being linked to Al Gore through a Nobel peace prize has not helped.
Though transparent in some ways, the IPCC is woefully opaque in others. Depending as it does on expert judgment, the bona fides of its authors—the next batch, all 831 of them, was named in June—is crucially important. Yet their selection from national lists of nominees goes on entirely behind closed doors. This has led to a perception that points of view that do not hew to some sort of party line are being excluded.
A post-Pachauri panel
A better set-up could help. At present, the IPCC lacks a full-time chair (Dr Pachauri continues to run a large energy-research institute in India). It does not have the resources needed to support its volunteer authors. It lacks clear standards for judging conflicts of interest and an independent ombudsman.
The governments which run the IPCC will meet in South Korea in October. They should use the opportunity to begin a full reappraisal of what they and their citizens want from the panel in terms of timeliness, transparency and trust, and how to get it; if this means pausing the current assessment round, then so be it. They should give the panel new staff, resources and rules. And they should look at a range of candidates for a new position as the full-time chair. Dr Pachauri has been a staunch defender of the panel as it is rather than an advocate for reform that would improve it. He is not the man to carry out the changes it badly needs
Ireland's Approach to Electric Cars Makes Sense
Andrew Price
on April 14, 2010 at 3:20 pm PDT
Just a few days ago there were reports that Dublin's bike sharing program was one of the most successful around. Now there's an announcement that Ireland is committing to a huge, comprehensive program to get people into electric cars. The plan incorporates government incentives to get people in electric cars, a plan to create a huge charging infrastructure, and a deal with Nissan and Renault to supply the cars themselves.
If you're looking to buy an electric car, the Irish government will give you €5,000 (about $6,800) and waive the Vehicle Registration Tax. At the same time, the semi-state controlled utility, the Electricity Supply Board, will build 3,500 charging outlets by the end of 2011. Some already exist in Dublin and others are planned for Cork, Galway, Waterford, and Limerick. Nissan will bring the Leaf to Ireland by 2011 and two Renault models, the Kangoo ZE and the Fluence ZE, will also be introduced.
The hope is to have 2,000 electric cars in use by 2011 and to have EVs account for 10percent of all Ireland's vehicles by 2020.
This is really smart. There's a chicken-and-egg problem with electric vehicles. It's hard to commit to the charging infrastructure when people aren't driving the cars, but it's hard to sell the cars if they aren't convenient to charge. By ensuring that there will be affordable electric cars and an infrastructure at the same time, this allows for a much smoother transition to cleaner transportation.
Electric Car Charging Stations Get Funded in Denmark
Paris Plans Awesome Electric Car Share
Infrastructure Électrique: France Spends $2.2 Billion on Charging Stations
Houston Embraces the Leaf
Reno Ong 3 months ago
The problem with committing to infrastructure to deal with electric vehicles is that this involves dramatic changes not only on the level of outlets or recharging stations, but also to the power grid and the power source.
Sure, it would be okay if a nation gradually eases in to the use of electric vehicles. That way, the system can adapt bit by bit to the energy needs (this of course involves investing in sustainable methods of generating power, without which the whole argument for electric vehicles collapses) until such a time when electric vehicles can come into play in a dominant manner.
Maybe for a country like Ireland, this might be more easily achieved. But on a larger scale say, in the United States, this will be very difficult, if not outright impossible. Still larger, on a global scale, developing nations will find it a challenge to make such a dramatic shift, when they already lack the funds for the most basic of infrastructures. You can't talk about improving power grids and energy production when good power grids and sustainable sources of power aren't established in the first place.
When it comes down to it, electric vehicles are a decent enough idea, but I don't think they are the cure-all in themselves. They can alleviate the dependency on traditional fuels, but I can scarcely believe that they will take over as the main mode of transportation, at least not in the near future.
Comment
Small landlocked countries are the initial aim of A Better Place electric cars, like Israel and Hawaii. San Francisco is also very involved in this process. You can go from one side of the country or city to the other on one charge.
on April 14, 2010 at 3:20 pm PDT
Just a few days ago there were reports that Dublin's bike sharing program was one of the most successful around. Now there's an announcement that Ireland is committing to a huge, comprehensive program to get people into electric cars. The plan incorporates government incentives to get people in electric cars, a plan to create a huge charging infrastructure, and a deal with Nissan and Renault to supply the cars themselves.
If you're looking to buy an electric car, the Irish government will give you €5,000 (about $6,800) and waive the Vehicle Registration Tax. At the same time, the semi-state controlled utility, the Electricity Supply Board, will build 3,500 charging outlets by the end of 2011. Some already exist in Dublin and others are planned for Cork, Galway, Waterford, and Limerick. Nissan will bring the Leaf to Ireland by 2011 and two Renault models, the Kangoo ZE and the Fluence ZE, will also be introduced.
The hope is to have 2,000 electric cars in use by 2011 and to have EVs account for 10percent of all Ireland's vehicles by 2020.
This is really smart. There's a chicken-and-egg problem with electric vehicles. It's hard to commit to the charging infrastructure when people aren't driving the cars, but it's hard to sell the cars if they aren't convenient to charge. By ensuring that there will be affordable electric cars and an infrastructure at the same time, this allows for a much smoother transition to cleaner transportation.
Electric Car Charging Stations Get Funded in Denmark
Paris Plans Awesome Electric Car Share
Infrastructure Électrique: France Spends $2.2 Billion on Charging Stations
Houston Embraces the Leaf
Reno Ong 3 months ago
The problem with committing to infrastructure to deal with electric vehicles is that this involves dramatic changes not only on the level of outlets or recharging stations, but also to the power grid and the power source.
Sure, it would be okay if a nation gradually eases in to the use of electric vehicles. That way, the system can adapt bit by bit to the energy needs (this of course involves investing in sustainable methods of generating power, without which the whole argument for electric vehicles collapses) until such a time when electric vehicles can come into play in a dominant manner.
Maybe for a country like Ireland, this might be more easily achieved. But on a larger scale say, in the United States, this will be very difficult, if not outright impossible. Still larger, on a global scale, developing nations will find it a challenge to make such a dramatic shift, when they already lack the funds for the most basic of infrastructures. You can't talk about improving power grids and energy production when good power grids and sustainable sources of power aren't established in the first place.
When it comes down to it, electric vehicles are a decent enough idea, but I don't think they are the cure-all in themselves. They can alleviate the dependency on traditional fuels, but I can scarcely believe that they will take over as the main mode of transportation, at least not in the near future.
Comment
Small landlocked countries are the initial aim of A Better Place electric cars, like Israel and Hawaii. San Francisco is also very involved in this process. You can go from one side of the country or city to the other on one charge.
Houston Embraces the Leaf
Houston Embraces the Leaf
Andrew Price on February 8, 2010 at 6:00 am PST
The city of Houston is partnering with Nissan and Reliant Energy to make the city electric-car friendly (and get people driving the Nissan Leaf). From The Houston Chronicle:
To support electric vehicles like the Leaf, which will be available in Houston toward year's end, the city and Reliant are working to create an infrastructure that places charging stations in convenient locations. Reliant will also be developing a system of support, including home assessments, for people installing home charging stations. The stations will be compatible with other plug-in vehicles as well.
There's a bit of an infrastructure chicken-and-egg problem for all-electric cars. Will people buy them if there aren't convenient charging stations? Does it make sense to build tons of charging stations if no one drives electric cars? A private-public partnership like this, which harnesses the power (heh) of a huge retail electricity provider, seems like a smart way to address that problem.
Via The Oil Drum.
Ireland's Approach to Electric Cars Makes Sense
Nissan Leaf EV to Hit Market in Late 2010
4.7 Million EV Charging Units Expected by 2015
Early Volt Buyers Get Free Charging Stations
What do you think?
Mark it good Write a comment ↓ Everyone's Responses
LouAlcantar 1 day ago
This is great. Texas has the most installed windpower in the country. Less tanker trucks on the road is a very good thing.
Andrew Price on February 8, 2010 at 6:00 am PST
The city of Houston is partnering with Nissan and Reliant Energy to make the city electric-car friendly (and get people driving the Nissan Leaf). From The Houston Chronicle:
To support electric vehicles like the Leaf, which will be available in Houston toward year's end, the city and Reliant are working to create an infrastructure that places charging stations in convenient locations. Reliant will also be developing a system of support, including home assessments, for people installing home charging stations. The stations will be compatible with other plug-in vehicles as well.
There's a bit of an infrastructure chicken-and-egg problem for all-electric cars. Will people buy them if there aren't convenient charging stations? Does it make sense to build tons of charging stations if no one drives electric cars? A private-public partnership like this, which harnesses the power (heh) of a huge retail electricity provider, seems like a smart way to address that problem.
Via The Oil Drum.
Ireland's Approach to Electric Cars Makes Sense
Nissan Leaf EV to Hit Market in Late 2010
4.7 Million EV Charging Units Expected by 2015
Early Volt Buyers Get Free Charging Stations
What do you think?
Mark it good Write a comment ↓ Everyone's Responses
LouAlcantar 1 day ago
This is great. Texas has the most installed windpower in the country. Less tanker trucks on the road is a very good thing.
Google.Org Doubles Down on Solar Thermal Power
By Alexis Madrigal
May 14, 2008 | 5:18 pm | Categories: Energy
BrightSource Energy, a solar thermal power company, announced they closed a $115 million round of funding from a raft of influential investors, including Google.org, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, and BP Alternative Energy.
Google has only announced three investments in alternative energy companies. Two of them have been into companies using solar thermal technology, which uses mirrors to turn liquid into steam that drives a turbine, lending support to a burgeoning but unproven industry.
"We’re very enthusiastic about solar thermal technology," said Dan Reicher, the Director of Climate Change & Energy Initiatives for Google.org. "This second investment obviously indidcates that."
The nineties were a dark time for alternative energy. Now, though, with climate change and expensive oil dominating headlines, scores of new wind, solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, and geothermal companies have emerged to take advantage of renewable energy credits and the need for cleaner energy. While wind is further along the commercialization path, its intermittent nature is a major problem for the grid. With nuclear plants looking increasingly expensive and
running into production bottlenecks, solar thermal is emerging as a leading alternative to fossil fuel power plants.
Google’s not the only believer in the technology. Dozens of institutional and venture investors are getting behind solar thermal technology as a possible replacement for coal and natural gas plants.
While Google’s other investment in solar thermal technology, eSolar, was conceived by venture capitalist Bill Gross, BrightSource has deep roots in the field. During the last peak in oil prices during the early 80s, BrightSource’s current engineering team was hard at work for Luz, a company which built over 350 megawatts of solar thermal power plants in the Mojave Desert. Last month, BrightSource signed the biggest solar deal ever, agreeing to deliver 900 megawatts of power to the California utility, PG&E.
In addition to eSolar’s $130 million funding last month, Abu Dhabi’s clean-tech fund, Masdar, has funded a $1.2 billion solar thermal company called Torresol. Yet another player, Abengoa, recently signed a $4 billion deal with Arizona Public Utilities, and Stirling Energy Systems, a company that has adapted the Stirling Engine, a 200-year-old invention, for concentrated solar power, even pulled in a $100 million investment.
Reicher said that BrightSource was a promising contender to eventually reach Google’s goal of developing renewable energy that is cheaper than coal.
"We’ve canvassed pretty much the entire group of solar thermal technologies and in terms of technology, business plan, and team, they stack up very well," he said.
Still, all the solar thermal companies are relatively small and no new plants have been built in the United States in more than twenty years. It’s hard to pick winners at this stage of the game.
"You have this diversity of designs … but until we have more plants that are actually built, it’s going to be hard to know which design will come out on top," Ryan Wiser, a renewable energy analyst at Lawrence Berkeley Labs, told us last month.
Brightsource CEO John Woolard struck a similar note, declining to talk about theoretical power generation numbers or even their technology. Woolard said they were "heavily negotiating" an additional 1,100 megawatts worth of deals. They plan to break ground on their first project, a mockup of which can be seen above, in nine to twelve months.
"It’s going to come down to construction management, your ability to understand and control costs," said Woolard. "We like to keep a high engineering-to-marketing ratio."
That’s because Woolard said the only audience that really matters are the professional engineers at firms like Black & Veatch who evaluate power plants for the big money companies that will actually finance getting "steel in the ground."
"They are really, in a strange way, the ultimate audience or customer," Woolard said.
In the meantime, they’ve made an impact on Reichert, who was Bill Clinton’s assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy.
"We’re impressed with the engineering they’ve done," he said. "If you’ve got reduced cost and higher operating temperatures, that’s a big part of coming down the cost curve for solar energy
Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/05/googleorg-doubl/#ixzz0tQrKVmTo
May 14, 2008 | 5:18 pm | Categories: Energy
BrightSource Energy, a solar thermal power company, announced they closed a $115 million round of funding from a raft of influential investors, including Google.org, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, and BP Alternative Energy.
Google has only announced three investments in alternative energy companies. Two of them have been into companies using solar thermal technology, which uses mirrors to turn liquid into steam that drives a turbine, lending support to a burgeoning but unproven industry.
"We’re very enthusiastic about solar thermal technology," said Dan Reicher, the Director of Climate Change & Energy Initiatives for Google.org. "This second investment obviously indidcates that."
The nineties were a dark time for alternative energy. Now, though, with climate change and expensive oil dominating headlines, scores of new wind, solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, and geothermal companies have emerged to take advantage of renewable energy credits and the need for cleaner energy. While wind is further along the commercialization path, its intermittent nature is a major problem for the grid. With nuclear plants looking increasingly expensive and
running into production bottlenecks, solar thermal is emerging as a leading alternative to fossil fuel power plants.
Google’s not the only believer in the technology. Dozens of institutional and venture investors are getting behind solar thermal technology as a possible replacement for coal and natural gas plants.
While Google’s other investment in solar thermal technology, eSolar, was conceived by venture capitalist Bill Gross, BrightSource has deep roots in the field. During the last peak in oil prices during the early 80s, BrightSource’s current engineering team was hard at work for Luz, a company which built over 350 megawatts of solar thermal power plants in the Mojave Desert. Last month, BrightSource signed the biggest solar deal ever, agreeing to deliver 900 megawatts of power to the California utility, PG&E.
In addition to eSolar’s $130 million funding last month, Abu Dhabi’s clean-tech fund, Masdar, has funded a $1.2 billion solar thermal company called Torresol. Yet another player, Abengoa, recently signed a $4 billion deal with Arizona Public Utilities, and Stirling Energy Systems, a company that has adapted the Stirling Engine, a 200-year-old invention, for concentrated solar power, even pulled in a $100 million investment.
Reicher said that BrightSource was a promising contender to eventually reach Google’s goal of developing renewable energy that is cheaper than coal.
"We’ve canvassed pretty much the entire group of solar thermal technologies and in terms of technology, business plan, and team, they stack up very well," he said.
Still, all the solar thermal companies are relatively small and no new plants have been built in the United States in more than twenty years. It’s hard to pick winners at this stage of the game.
"You have this diversity of designs … but until we have more plants that are actually built, it’s going to be hard to know which design will come out on top," Ryan Wiser, a renewable energy analyst at Lawrence Berkeley Labs, told us last month.
Brightsource CEO John Woolard struck a similar note, declining to talk about theoretical power generation numbers or even their technology. Woolard said they were "heavily negotiating" an additional 1,100 megawatts worth of deals. They plan to break ground on their first project, a mockup of which can be seen above, in nine to twelve months.
"It’s going to come down to construction management, your ability to understand and control costs," said Woolard. "We like to keep a high engineering-to-marketing ratio."
That’s because Woolard said the only audience that really matters are the professional engineers at firms like Black & Veatch who evaluate power plants for the big money companies that will actually finance getting "steel in the ground."
"They are really, in a strange way, the ultimate audience or customer," Woolard said.
In the meantime, they’ve made an impact on Reichert, who was Bill Clinton’s assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy.
"We’re impressed with the engineering they’ve done," he said. "If you’ve got reduced cost and higher operating temperatures, that’s a big part of coming down the cost curve for solar energy
Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/05/googleorg-doubl/#ixzz0tQrKVmTo
Google May Build Green-Tech Power Plants
By Alexis Madrigal December 2, 2009 | 10:42 am | Categories: Energy
SAN FRANCISCO — Google will become directly involved in deploying energy technologies, the company’s director of climate initiatives said Monday.
The company has long supported and invested in renewable energy but kept its participation to greening its campus and funding several solar, wind and geothermal companies. In September, Google announced it was internally developing a new mirror for solar thermal plants. Now, the company may wade even further into the energy sector.
“We’ll make a step soon into energy projects,” Dan Reicher, director of climate change and energy initiatives at Google, told a group of energy experts assembled in the cafeteria at the company’s swanky San Francisco office.
That could mean Google starts directly financing power plants. Throughout the energy innovation event, which also featured energy leaders from Stanford, MIT and UC Berkeley, Reicher stressed the importance of going beyond just research and development to deploying innovative energy technologies.
“Energy innovation to me means a real pipeline that goes from basic research to applied research to demonstration projects to the scale up and from there to full commercial deployment,” Reicher said. “It’s a long pipeline and to be honest we don’t do a very good job of moving technologies through this pipeline.”
Reicher said the Googlers have even coined a clever phrase to describe their vision of energy policy: “from light bulb to light bulb.” They want to help move new technologies from the idea (the first light bulb) to the product (the second light bulb).
He championed an idea bouncing around Congress to create a Clean Energy Deployment Administration, which would help green tech companies get large power plants built.
But with a ballooning federal deficit and rough economy, it’s hard to know where the money will come from. Reicher and the other panelists agreed that energy R&D funding should be around $15 billion a year.
MIT physicist Ernie Moniz warned several times that the current increase in energy research came courtesy of the stimulus bill, which won’t be around forever.
“We’re going to have to see what happens after these next two years because what we need is not a drop but a further increase in RD&D funding commensurate with the task at hand,” Moniz said.
One idea for raising funds is to shift it from other places within government through standard appropriations, but Moniz suggested a different kind of funding base. A small charge could be added to electricity usage, which would add up to a very large sum — the Office Space funding model.
Charging about four-tenths of a cent per kilowatt on the 3,669,919 million kilowatt hours of electricity used in the United States would yield the $15 billion dollars the energy researchers want. That would essentially be a 5 percent tax on the average cost of a kilowatt hour.
Moniz said the idea had worked before. A successful program taxed natural gas transmission across state lines to fund the non-profit Gas Research Institute, beginning in 1976.
Image: A mirror being placed at Brightsource’s Israeli demonstration facility. Google has invested in Brightsource and other solar thermal players like eSolar.
See Also:
•Google Smart Meter App Not Ready for Finals
•Google’s Super Satellite Captures First Image
•Google.Org Doubles Down on Solar Thermal Power
•Biggest Solar Deal Ever Announced — We’re Talking Gigawatts
•Utilities Jumping into the Solar Game
WiSci 2.0: Alexis Madrigal’s Twitter, Google Reader feed, and green tech history research site; Wired Science on Twitter and Facebook.
Close Posted by: 3N1GMA | 12/2/09 | 1:54 pm |
Solar thermal is the way to go. Props to Google. Now if they’d only release free-energy magnetic motors…
Posted by: driverguy7 | 12/2/09 | 2:02 pm |
They’ll probably make radioactive plankton batteries that never run out of power….
Posted by: Arkyll | 12/2/09 | 2:24 pm |
I HEART GOOGLE
Posted by: onlyhuman | 12/2/09 | 2:42 pm |
being green is good
but
wanting consumers to pay a little extra or add a tax for research is nothing but corporate socialism
Posted by: h311c477 | 12/2/09 | 2:44 pm |
3N1GMA:
No such thing as free energy bud. 1st law, 2nd law cannot be broken. There have been many attempts and zero successes. And please don’t go off about some gov’t conspiracy.
Posted by: svanneck | 12/2/09 | 3:47 pm |
With all those mirrors going online, I’m buying stock in Windex.
Posted by: Gifftor | 12/2/09 | 3:58 pm |
@onlyhuman
Corporate socialism?
-
That’s the mating call of oxymorons.
-
Posted by: sethdayal | 12/2/09 | 3:58 pm |
Not so “renewable” costs are at minimum ten times the cost of mass produced nuclear power.
Germany has already wasted 10 years and $100 billion on solar/wind and has not reduced its greenhouse emissions one iota. To help with its new found addiction to Russian gas, it is planning a massive build of dirty coal plants to meet its baseload power requirements.
Nuclear power is the only possible answer to a maybe ten years away civilization ending peak oil/climate crisis.
A worldwide build of 10000 reactors would be paid for by and would end fossil fuel use using only a small fraction of our industrial capacity with investments returns in a three year payback period. With mass production, nuclear power costs drop from the current Asian $1.5 to under $1 billion a gigawatt cheaper than coal and 10% the least cost not so “renewable”.
Tthe US needs 2500 new reactors but is crippled by inefficient private power companies, a biased Nuclear Rejection Commission and corrupt and litigious political and legal systems, quadrupling nuclear costs and time frames. Rather than wasting money on not so “renewables” the US should be fixing the issues that make a US designed AP-1000 reactor cost 4 times as much and take twice as long to build as the same reactor in China. Labour is a small percentage of nuclear construction costs.
A nuclear conversion saves us a ton of money, eliminates air pollution and the associated death and suffering of thousands of Canadians, arrests our slide over the climate/peak oil precipice, creates a huge employment boosting domestic and export industry, and makes our economy far more competitive than Europe’s run with converts to the not so “renewable” religion. Even the deniers here would go for it.
Goggle steven kirsch for lessons in how to git ‘er done.
Posted by: joelapp | 12/2/09 | 4:24 pm |
Google is completely STUPID. If I were a stockholder, I would be screaming “DO YOUR JOB!” You’re not a stinkin’ power company, you’re an IT company. Quickest way to kill a company: get off mission.
Posted by: TikoBroje | 12/2/09 | 4:57 pm |
If Google was really interested in providing society with a “greater good” they would provide financial assistance to outfit individual buildings (both commercial and residential) with solar panels or wind turbines. Solar ‘plants’ are still centralized power which people have to pay into and requires reliance on the inefficient power grid.
Posted by: damasterwc | 12/2/09 | 5:16 pm |
i agree with sethdayal…
if google is interested in energy, it should develop lead cooled reactors or help revive the LFTR or other thorium reactors, etc. advanced design nuke reactors are the solution. it’s just so crappy that media led fear mongering allowed the government to cut off research in the 70s… plus clinton caved in as well and shut down the fast breeder in the 90s. all of this would have been solved by now… btw, for those of you who don’t know about these types of reactors and might be concerned about “nuclear waste” (which is in reality 97% fuel), these advanced reactor designs “burn” about 99% of the fuel greatly reducing the waste. in fact, the LFTR (liquid floride thorium reactor) is mineable after 300 years, and would be loaded full of precious metals like platinum.
Posted by: mccuerc | 12/2/09 | 5:16 pm |
@human you are incorrect. A tax to fund a public good like open research is not corporate socialism. While badly defined corporate socialism seems to be a way to keep failing businesses open so as to avoid unemployment or as a way of paying off the contributors to a political campaign. By definition corporate socialism is restricted in disbursement to coproprate entities who employ legal means to avoid redistributing any benefit from the input. A public research institution must publish information to all. Similar to the theory behind the patent system it is a way of creating and distriubuting new technology. The patent system grants a private monopoly and right of exploitation for a number of years: the protected private profit is a “tax” as it is coercively enforced by the government on the initial users. The pay off is that the knowledge is disseminated. Research institutes are similar to universities in that the dissemination of the knowledge is the end product. Neither is provably superior to the other in terms of distributing knowledge. They actually seem to work together much better than they work separately. Research institutes and universities tend to work on the basics, areas usually with a low pay off, and then individuals cut corners and costs to get a commercial process, something with an immediate pay off if you can keep the monopoly.
Posted by: treq | 12/2/09 | 6:52 pm |
@ sethdayal: “Germany has already wasted 10 years and $100 billion on solar/wind and has not reduced its greenhouse emissions one iota.”
[citation needed]
Also, I note that you completely forget to discuss the fact that the raw materials used in manufacturing fuel for nuclear plants are 1) finite. 2) mined. 3) linked with unstable political climates as much as oil 4) has no proven, safe disposal method other than building a giant concrete garbage pit to dump it in and forget about (i.e. leave it to our grandchildren to worry about). Nuclear does have advantages, but also just as many disadvantages, as does every other source of energy. I’d rather have a bunch of solar panels in my back yard than a power plant or nuclear waste disposal facility – and if you think that stashing them in the middle of nowhere solves the problem, it just means that you need to get out of the city more often and face the open spaces that you’ll be irretrievably ruining and making unusable for future generations. Remember, landspace is finite, but radioactivity is as good as infinite to the average species.
@ joelapp:
It’s called strategy. It’s called energy independence. The easiest way that Google can increase their profits is to lower operating costs. They invest an insane amount of R&D in high efficiency cooling and low power data centers. Getting them off the grid and as autonomous as possible is an ideal long term strategy when facing nothing but increasing energy costs.
Posted by: mystixa | 12/2/09 | 8:15 pm |
They may not currently be a power producing company in general, but they are a massive power user. They own the largest data centers in the world. Those and others like them currently use 1% of the worlds total power output. They are essentially in the business of turning electrical power into information.
This is such a central calculation for them that it even dictates their choice of processor. They choose processors not based on clock speed, but calculations per watt. If they were able to generate their own low cost power it would go a long ways towads increasing their overall profits. ..any side benefits for CO2 emissions is just gravy.
Posted by: benc | 12/2/09 | 8:26 pm |
Geothermal is the best way to go. Why? Well when the sun doesnt shine, geothermal still works. Many people also think you need to be near hot springs to harness geothermal,….you dont. You can drill into the earth nearly anywhere and harness the heat that the well will produce. Just drill deep enough and you will find plenty of heat. Solar is only good for boosting power during the day.
Posted by: sethdayal | 12/3/09 | 12:14 am |
Treq might try googling the following for Germany’s green energy results germanys-green-energy-gap and my steven kirsch reference would update him on what will be done about nuclear waste/fuel issues.
Damastrewc’s comment should also help. For some reason Treq chose not to read it before commenting.
Posted by: sethdayal | 12/3/09 | 12:19 am |
Mass large scale gigawatt level geothermal energy requires drilling deep into the earth injecting water and pumping with not yet invented 400 deg C pumps supercritical steam to the surface driving generators but also causing earthquakes.
Aside from the low hanging fruit already plucked and geothermal enhanced home heat pumps (powered with nuclear power) geothermal at this point is an extremely expensive pipe dream.
Posted by: lutfen | 12/18/09 | 3:55 pm |
site quality and marginal hot and sexi travesti
ankara travestileri busite fark yaratir istanbul travestileri seyahade izmir travestileri
antalya travestileri toplantinvar bursadasin avrupayakasi travestileri karsidamisin anadoluyakasi travestileri
Posted by: jealousy | 01/5/10 | 1:37 pm |
veri nice. thanks… travesti ajans
Posted by: EuroDizi | 05/31/10 | 4:57 pm |
Greetings. very nice explanation, thank you for this information. film izle dizi izle video izle sinema izle When I read around the internet by chance. really nice page.
Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/google-greentech-power-plants/#ixzz0tPrx0u5e
SAN FRANCISCO — Google will become directly involved in deploying energy technologies, the company’s director of climate initiatives said Monday.
The company has long supported and invested in renewable energy but kept its participation to greening its campus and funding several solar, wind and geothermal companies. In September, Google announced it was internally developing a new mirror for solar thermal plants. Now, the company may wade even further into the energy sector.
“We’ll make a step soon into energy projects,” Dan Reicher, director of climate change and energy initiatives at Google, told a group of energy experts assembled in the cafeteria at the company’s swanky San Francisco office.
That could mean Google starts directly financing power plants. Throughout the energy innovation event, which also featured energy leaders from Stanford, MIT and UC Berkeley, Reicher stressed the importance of going beyond just research and development to deploying innovative energy technologies.
“Energy innovation to me means a real pipeline that goes from basic research to applied research to demonstration projects to the scale up and from there to full commercial deployment,” Reicher said. “It’s a long pipeline and to be honest we don’t do a very good job of moving technologies through this pipeline.”
Reicher said the Googlers have even coined a clever phrase to describe their vision of energy policy: “from light bulb to light bulb.” They want to help move new technologies from the idea (the first light bulb) to the product (the second light bulb).
He championed an idea bouncing around Congress to create a Clean Energy Deployment Administration, which would help green tech companies get large power plants built.
But with a ballooning federal deficit and rough economy, it’s hard to know where the money will come from. Reicher and the other panelists agreed that energy R&D funding should be around $15 billion a year.
MIT physicist Ernie Moniz warned several times that the current increase in energy research came courtesy of the stimulus bill, which won’t be around forever.
“We’re going to have to see what happens after these next two years because what we need is not a drop but a further increase in RD&D funding commensurate with the task at hand,” Moniz said.
One idea for raising funds is to shift it from other places within government through standard appropriations, but Moniz suggested a different kind of funding base. A small charge could be added to electricity usage, which would add up to a very large sum — the Office Space funding model.
Charging about four-tenths of a cent per kilowatt on the 3,669,919 million kilowatt hours of electricity used in the United States would yield the $15 billion dollars the energy researchers want. That would essentially be a 5 percent tax on the average cost of a kilowatt hour.
Moniz said the idea had worked before. A successful program taxed natural gas transmission across state lines to fund the non-profit Gas Research Institute, beginning in 1976.
Image: A mirror being placed at Brightsource’s Israeli demonstration facility. Google has invested in Brightsource and other solar thermal players like eSolar.
See Also:
•Google Smart Meter App Not Ready for Finals
•Google’s Super Satellite Captures First Image
•Google.Org Doubles Down on Solar Thermal Power
•Biggest Solar Deal Ever Announced — We’re Talking Gigawatts
•Utilities Jumping into the Solar Game
WiSci 2.0: Alexis Madrigal’s Twitter, Google Reader feed, and green tech history research site; Wired Science on Twitter and Facebook.
Close Posted by: 3N1GMA | 12/2/09 | 1:54 pm |
Solar thermal is the way to go. Props to Google. Now if they’d only release free-energy magnetic motors…
Posted by: driverguy7 | 12/2/09 | 2:02 pm |
They’ll probably make radioactive plankton batteries that never run out of power….
Posted by: Arkyll | 12/2/09 | 2:24 pm |
I HEART GOOGLE
Posted by: onlyhuman | 12/2/09 | 2:42 pm |
being green is good
but
wanting consumers to pay a little extra or add a tax for research is nothing but corporate socialism
Posted by: h311c477 | 12/2/09 | 2:44 pm |
3N1GMA:
No such thing as free energy bud. 1st law, 2nd law cannot be broken. There have been many attempts and zero successes. And please don’t go off about some gov’t conspiracy.
Posted by: svanneck | 12/2/09 | 3:47 pm |
With all those mirrors going online, I’m buying stock in Windex.
Posted by: Gifftor | 12/2/09 | 3:58 pm |
@onlyhuman
Corporate socialism?
-
That’s the mating call of oxymorons.
-
Posted by: sethdayal | 12/2/09 | 3:58 pm |
Not so “renewable” costs are at minimum ten times the cost of mass produced nuclear power.
Germany has already wasted 10 years and $100 billion on solar/wind and has not reduced its greenhouse emissions one iota. To help with its new found addiction to Russian gas, it is planning a massive build of dirty coal plants to meet its baseload power requirements.
Nuclear power is the only possible answer to a maybe ten years away civilization ending peak oil/climate crisis.
A worldwide build of 10000 reactors would be paid for by and would end fossil fuel use using only a small fraction of our industrial capacity with investments returns in a three year payback period. With mass production, nuclear power costs drop from the current Asian $1.5 to under $1 billion a gigawatt cheaper than coal and 10% the least cost not so “renewable”.
Tthe US needs 2500 new reactors but is crippled by inefficient private power companies, a biased Nuclear Rejection Commission and corrupt and litigious political and legal systems, quadrupling nuclear costs and time frames. Rather than wasting money on not so “renewables” the US should be fixing the issues that make a US designed AP-1000 reactor cost 4 times as much and take twice as long to build as the same reactor in China. Labour is a small percentage of nuclear construction costs.
A nuclear conversion saves us a ton of money, eliminates air pollution and the associated death and suffering of thousands of Canadians, arrests our slide over the climate/peak oil precipice, creates a huge employment boosting domestic and export industry, and makes our economy far more competitive than Europe’s run with converts to the not so “renewable” religion. Even the deniers here would go for it.
Goggle steven kirsch for lessons in how to git ‘er done.
Posted by: joelapp | 12/2/09 | 4:24 pm |
Google is completely STUPID. If I were a stockholder, I would be screaming “DO YOUR JOB!” You’re not a stinkin’ power company, you’re an IT company. Quickest way to kill a company: get off mission.
Posted by: TikoBroje | 12/2/09 | 4:57 pm |
If Google was really interested in providing society with a “greater good” they would provide financial assistance to outfit individual buildings (both commercial and residential) with solar panels or wind turbines. Solar ‘plants’ are still centralized power which people have to pay into and requires reliance on the inefficient power grid.
Posted by: damasterwc | 12/2/09 | 5:16 pm |
i agree with sethdayal…
if google is interested in energy, it should develop lead cooled reactors or help revive the LFTR or other thorium reactors, etc. advanced design nuke reactors are the solution. it’s just so crappy that media led fear mongering allowed the government to cut off research in the 70s… plus clinton caved in as well and shut down the fast breeder in the 90s. all of this would have been solved by now… btw, for those of you who don’t know about these types of reactors and might be concerned about “nuclear waste” (which is in reality 97% fuel), these advanced reactor designs “burn” about 99% of the fuel greatly reducing the waste. in fact, the LFTR (liquid floride thorium reactor) is mineable after 300 years, and would be loaded full of precious metals like platinum.
Posted by: mccuerc | 12/2/09 | 5:16 pm |
@human you are incorrect. A tax to fund a public good like open research is not corporate socialism. While badly defined corporate socialism seems to be a way to keep failing businesses open so as to avoid unemployment or as a way of paying off the contributors to a political campaign. By definition corporate socialism is restricted in disbursement to coproprate entities who employ legal means to avoid redistributing any benefit from the input. A public research institution must publish information to all. Similar to the theory behind the patent system it is a way of creating and distriubuting new technology. The patent system grants a private monopoly and right of exploitation for a number of years: the protected private profit is a “tax” as it is coercively enforced by the government on the initial users. The pay off is that the knowledge is disseminated. Research institutes are similar to universities in that the dissemination of the knowledge is the end product. Neither is provably superior to the other in terms of distributing knowledge. They actually seem to work together much better than they work separately. Research institutes and universities tend to work on the basics, areas usually with a low pay off, and then individuals cut corners and costs to get a commercial process, something with an immediate pay off if you can keep the monopoly.
Posted by: treq | 12/2/09 | 6:52 pm |
@ sethdayal: “Germany has already wasted 10 years and $100 billion on solar/wind and has not reduced its greenhouse emissions one iota.”
[citation needed]
Also, I note that you completely forget to discuss the fact that the raw materials used in manufacturing fuel for nuclear plants are 1) finite. 2) mined. 3) linked with unstable political climates as much as oil 4) has no proven, safe disposal method other than building a giant concrete garbage pit to dump it in and forget about (i.e. leave it to our grandchildren to worry about). Nuclear does have advantages, but also just as many disadvantages, as does every other source of energy. I’d rather have a bunch of solar panels in my back yard than a power plant or nuclear waste disposal facility – and if you think that stashing them in the middle of nowhere solves the problem, it just means that you need to get out of the city more often and face the open spaces that you’ll be irretrievably ruining and making unusable for future generations. Remember, landspace is finite, but radioactivity is as good as infinite to the average species.
@ joelapp:
It’s called strategy. It’s called energy independence. The easiest way that Google can increase their profits is to lower operating costs. They invest an insane amount of R&D in high efficiency cooling and low power data centers. Getting them off the grid and as autonomous as possible is an ideal long term strategy when facing nothing but increasing energy costs.
Posted by: mystixa | 12/2/09 | 8:15 pm |
They may not currently be a power producing company in general, but they are a massive power user. They own the largest data centers in the world. Those and others like them currently use 1% of the worlds total power output. They are essentially in the business of turning electrical power into information.
This is such a central calculation for them that it even dictates their choice of processor. They choose processors not based on clock speed, but calculations per watt. If they were able to generate their own low cost power it would go a long ways towads increasing their overall profits. ..any side benefits for CO2 emissions is just gravy.
Posted by: benc | 12/2/09 | 8:26 pm |
Geothermal is the best way to go. Why? Well when the sun doesnt shine, geothermal still works. Many people also think you need to be near hot springs to harness geothermal,….you dont. You can drill into the earth nearly anywhere and harness the heat that the well will produce. Just drill deep enough and you will find plenty of heat. Solar is only good for boosting power during the day.
Posted by: sethdayal | 12/3/09 | 12:14 am |
Treq might try googling the following for Germany’s green energy results germanys-green-energy-gap and my steven kirsch reference would update him on what will be done about nuclear waste/fuel issues.
Damastrewc’s comment should also help. For some reason Treq chose not to read it before commenting.
Posted by: sethdayal | 12/3/09 | 12:19 am |
Mass large scale gigawatt level geothermal energy requires drilling deep into the earth injecting water and pumping with not yet invented 400 deg C pumps supercritical steam to the surface driving generators but also causing earthquakes.
Aside from the low hanging fruit already plucked and geothermal enhanced home heat pumps (powered with nuclear power) geothermal at this point is an extremely expensive pipe dream.
Posted by: lutfen | 12/18/09 | 3:55 pm |
site quality and marginal hot and sexi travesti
ankara travestileri busite fark yaratir istanbul travestileri seyahade izmir travestileri
antalya travestileri toplantinvar bursadasin avrupayakasi travestileri karsidamisin anadoluyakasi travestileri
Posted by: jealousy | 01/5/10 | 1:37 pm |
veri nice. thanks… travesti ajans
Posted by: EuroDizi | 05/31/10 | 4:57 pm |
Greetings. very nice explanation, thank you for this information. film izle dizi izle video izle sinema izle When I read around the internet by chance. really nice page.
Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/google-greentech-power-plants/#ixzz0tPrx0u5e
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)