Sustainability Film Series (and a MicroBrew)

See the winners of Multnomah County’s Climate Short Film Contest plus a new documentary, Deep Green – Solutions to Stop Global Warming Now at 6 PM, Sun, July 31, McMenamin’s Bagdad Theater (SE 37th and SE Hawthorne). Doors open at 5 PM. The movies are free. The beer is (probably) not.

Lighter, More Powerful Batteries

The cutting edge in consumer batteries are the so-called “lithium batteries” found in electronic devices and (higher-priced) electric vehicles. The selling point of a lithium battery is the punch it delivers, the fact that it can be recharged, but most of all, its light weight, a feature that stems from the fact that, atom for atom, lithium is one of the lightest substances in the universe. (In fact, lithium is atom #3 on the periodic table. Only hydrogen and helium are lighter.)

Lithium, however, is only half the story as far as lithium batteries are concerned. When a lithium battery discharges (or charges), electrons move between lithium and some other substance, and there’s the rub, finding a companion substance with all of the right properties, including light weight. “Getting There” (Science, 24 June 2011, p. 1494) reports on the latest research advances in “lithium” battery technologies (from 4th Symposium on Energy Storage: Beyond Lithium Ion held at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, June 7-9), including “lithium ion”, “lithium sulfide” and “lithium air” batteries.

The sidebar on Battery FAQs makes for some interesting reading:

Regulating Coal – And Coal Fights Back

“E.P.A. Issues Tougher Rules for Power Plants” (NY Times, July 7, 2011) tells a familiar story. The power plant regulations, which will take effect in 2012, are expected to “reduce emissions of compounds that cause soot, smog and acid rain from hundreds of power plants by millions of tons at an additional cost to utilities of less than $1 billion a year.” In addition, “cleaner air would prevent as many as 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks and hundreds of thousands of cases of asthma and other respiratory ailments every year.”

Regulations like these seem like a no-brainer, but predictably enough, the coal-burning industry is fighting back.

Decoupling from “King” Coal

When we think about the production of energy, our minds tend to focus (drill in?) on gasoline, that is, oil. Almost everyone has some awareness of at least one part of the Gasoline/Oil Problem: how much it costs, the foreign countries that have large amounts of oil, the oil spills, the dwindling supply, the greenhouse gases released by gasoline engines, and so on. Our last president said that our nation was “addicted to oil” and the phrase was powerful because “oil” registers in our conscious thought.

So what about coal? Did you know that when it comes to generating electricity, coal (not oil) is king? Since 1995, coal-burning power plants have provided roughly 50% of the energy needed to drive electrons through the nation’s power grid. Turn on your computer, click the remote on your TV, text a friend, flick on the lights – 50% of the power (on average) comes from the burning of coal. And did you know about the greenhouse gases produced by coal? 41% of worldwide CO2 emissions in 2005 were attributed to coal burning.*

Struggling to Find a UNified Vision for Sustainable Development

Two articles in the May 30, 2011 issue of C&E News describe political roadblocks in the path of sustainable development: when it comes to shared resources, nations readily fall into the trap of thinking they have conflicting interests.

One article, “Whither Sustainable Development” (p. 39) describes how U.N.-sponsored negotiations fell apart in mid-May over the definition of “green economy”. That issue, plus failing to agree on the responsibility of industrialized (“rich”) countries to provide financial and technical assistance to developing (“poor”) nations, stopped talks cold. Negotiators walked away from their tables and a number of agreements were left in limbo. Cross your fingers that the delegates will find a way to resolve their differences before next year’s U.N.-sponsored conference on sustainable development.

A second article, “Resources: Boosting Efficiency While Curbing Environmental Harm” (p. 40),  describes a new report on “Decoupling” from the U.N. International Resource Panel (IRP). Bottom-line: the entire world needs to “decouple”, that is, learn how to create products and services while consuming a lot less material. Otherwise we’re screwed. Industrialized countries like the U.S. should lead the way in this effort, of course, because our citizens consume the largest quantities of natural resources per capita. However, as the populations of less affluent countries grow, it will be just as daunting to figure out how to provide for the material needs of their citizens. You can read the full report, a fact sheet, an English-language summary, and a PowerPoint presentation for free.

Key Metals Not Recycled

One of the most energy-intensive, and potentially environmentally harmful, activities required to sustain our high-tech civilization is mining. Although coal mining and petroleum drilling grab the headlines, mining for various metals is equally important. Metal recycling (collecting those old soda cans and obsolete computers, for example) can make a huge impact by making some mining unnecessary. And, unlike with paper or plastics recycling, metals recycling usually produces material that is every bit as good (if not better) than the originally mined ore.

Unfortunately, a new (May 2011) United Nations report indicates that world-wide metal recycling efforts are very inefficient. The report identified 60 different important metals and said that fewer than one-third of these were recycled at rates of 50% or better. Most of the metals just go into the trash. The original report is here. A short news article about the report (C&E News, May 30, p. 9) is here.