Category Archives: environment

Organic Future For Batteries?

Increasing demand for electric vehicles and portable electronic devices is driving a parallel need for environmentally friendly batteries.

 

A greener future in store?
A greener future in store?

 

 

But combining improved performance with safe, eco-efficient, operation is a tall order. Michel Armand and his team from  the Universite de Picardie Jules Verne in France showed that a sustainably sourced organic version of the ubiquitous lithium-ion battery could provide the answer (Nature Materials, DOI:10.1038/NMAT2372).

 

Armand’s battery, built around a novel lithium-hydrocarbon anode, delivers up to three times the typical minimum energy capacity needed for practical applications but is environmentally friendly too.

 

The organic acids used to make the electrode are readily synthesised on a sustainable basis from abundant recycled plastics. They also appear as a metabolic by-product when bio-organisms act on common hydrocarbons like benzene.

 

The team say their device generates less heat and is more thermally stable compared with conventional Li-ion batteries with titanium or pure carbon electrodes. That makes it an attractive option for hybrid vehicles, where the presence of petroleum fuels alongside electricity makes battery meltdown unthinkable; w e glimpsed the consequences of thermal instability in 2006, when a manufacturing defect in Sony laptop batteries caused some devices to burst into flame.

 

Lithium-ion batteries must not show memory effect, so they retain their capacity when recharged from a partly charged condition. In the tests, performance of the organic battery dropped off only slowly during repeated recharge cycles, indicating a desirable reversibility of the chemistry. Before-and-after-charge x-ray diffraction measurements confirmed the structural stability of the electrode.

 

The team also say their device is lighter, the novel chemistry allowing replacement of heavier copper components with aluminium ones elsewhere in the battery. That makes all the difference in an electric vehicle where every gram counts.

General Aviation – Mostly Harmless?

I wasn’t very environmentally friendly over the Christmas holidays.

A CO2 emission of 2.1 tonnes, my share of a return flight to the US, represented about a quarter of the average UK person’s total yearly emission of 9 tonnes.

c152
Mostly harmless?

I used this fact recently as a topical lead-in for another article, adding that I once flew light aircraft as a hobby (=double criminal for sure).   But that presumption stuck in my head and prompted some research into the impact those little private planes really have in the big picture of global warming.

‘General Aviation’ is the name used in its broadest sense to include all non-scheduled corporate aviation plus private and sport aviation.   Take out the corporate jets, and we’re left with the ‘Piston GA’ category of the sort covered by my license, and including familiar planes like the four seat Cessna 172.

USA emissions data fell most readily out of Google, with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) pointing to EPA data showing GA’s contribution of less than 1% of all US GHG emissions from the transport sector, and Piston GA only 0.13%.   They argue that this is small potatoes compared to other sources more worthy of the regulator’s attention (see table) .

Table from the AOAG showing 2005 EPA data
Table from the AOPA showing 2005 EPA data

So that’s 2.4 million tonnes of CO2 from relatively small piston engined aircraft (a Tg or tera gram is one million metric tons, or tonnes) .   FAA data on the number of private licenses suggests this emission is associated with 200,000, of the 600,000 or so total pilots in the US.

In the UK, there are far fewer private pilots overall (around 35,000 license holders), and Piston GA in particular has a much smaller role in the economy.

We can estimate C02 from an assumed fuel consumption for the Cessna 172 of 8.6 US gallons per hour, producing 2.3kg CO2 per litre, equating to 75kg CO2 per hour.  Estimating the average recreational pilot is flying less than 50 hours a year equates to 3.7 tonnes CO2, which for 35,000 licensed UK pilots is 130,000 tonnes CO2.

Having a low relative impact is not an excuse to do nothing in this case.  Two efforts to reduce emissions further are exemplified by the Carbon Neutral Plane Programme, which arranges for aircraft owners to offset their aircraft’s emission through financial support of CO2 reduction projects, and technology incentives like the Green Prize competition run by CAFE and reported here.  Technical innovations include engine modifications within existing airframes, such as the introduction of Full Authority Digitial Engine Control (FADEC) – for 15% fuel savings, the substitution of a single, high-efficiency jet in place of  two piston engines, and more radical solutions such as electric powered aircraft.

In summary:

  • The average guy you see out for a fly on a Sunday afternoon is putting 3.7 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere over the year
  • If you take one  long haul holiday with your partner, your combined associated emission is larger, at say 4 tonnes CO2,  than the private pilot’s (double that if you take a couple of kids)
  • There are around 35,000 private pilots in the UK
  • There are over 60 million people in the UK – many taking foreign holidays

I guess we all need to decide which of our carbon burning activities are the more unnecessary and decadent – it’s not obvious.  And while I sense some unreasoned prejudice against it, my point is not to defend GA or any other position, but to illustrate the importance of understanding in general on CO2 issues: (a) impact per unit activity, (b) absolute impact, and (c) the opportunity cost of not putting your time, financial, intellectual, management, and emotional  resource where it can do the most good.


Interview With Alan Mootnick – Director, Gibbon Conservation Center, Santa Clarita

(Update 4th November 2011.  We were very sorry to hear of Alan’s death earlier today.  A fantastic guy and unmatched friend of gibbons.  Rest in peace Alan.)

What better way to spend Christmas than in the company of your favourite gibbons?   That’s exactly what my wife Erin and I did on the 26th December 2008, when we made our second visit to the Gibbon Conservation Center at Santa Clarita, California – home to some of the world’s rarest gibbons.

As well as catching up with gibbon families we first encountered in September, and described in this earlier post,  I made some sound recordings during this visit, including an extended interview with the Founder and Director of the Center, Alan Mootnick.

I hope you’ll  find the resulting podcast, which you can stream or download below, gives an in-depth, candid, yet often humorous insight  into the mission of the Gibbon Center, the plight of the gibbon, and the work of a dedicated scientist and hands-on conservationist.

(Please note, a later edit with the interview split down into six shorter sections can be found here)

*********

60Mb. Approx. 1 hour. Copyright, all rights reserved, 2009, Tim Jones  communicatescience.com

*********

Alan Mootnick, Director Gibbon Conservation Center
Alan Mootnick, Director Gibbon Conservation Center

If you enjoyed hearing about – and hearing ! – the gibbons of Santa Clarita, and would like to make a donation, you can do so here.

Make It An Araucaria heterophylla Christmas

It’s never too early to plan for next Christmas, so here is my insightful and environmentally friendly recommendation for next year’s christmas tree.

norfolkpine001small
Araucaria heterophylla. Photo: WikiCommons

Without calculating  the detailed carbon footprint of that temporarily living  piney off-cut standing beglittered in your lounge, or the plastic alternative you picked up for £20 at Woolies’ terminal sale, it’s probably safe to say both are more environmentally harmful, more expensive, and probably less attractive than the alternative – a living christmas tree.

From my experience this Christmas, I can happily recommend the arboreal company of a Norfolk Island Pine, a handsome 7ft tall in its pot, and supporting all the lights and trimmings you could want.  Cometh twelfth night, this tree can, unlike its temporary cousins, be returned to the garden until next year.   Or, if you don’t enjoy the favourable climate of Southern California, just keep it indoors like a regular potted plant.  Either way – low maintenance, low hassle.

Starting next year, make one part of your family.

For Peat’s Sake…..

(This article was originally published at conservationtoday.org)

We can all take action to help combat global warming.  Here is something for the gardeners amongst you to think about.

Direct man-made CO2 emissions are problematic enough, but they are only part of a complex interplay of sources and sinks for greenhouse gases that is still beyond our full understanding. For example, there has for some time now been concern over frozen peat bogs thawing and releasing stored up methane, locked away for millenia, and far worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Leave it in the ground

But peat is our friend too; and you can help by leaving it where it is.

Why? Because peat is largely made up of dead plants, rich in captured carbon that has been prevented, due to the moist air-free bog environment, from fully decomposing back to CO2. Drain the bogs, distrurb or harvest the peat, and the carbon recombines with oxygen in the air, taking us back to square one.

The National Trust are at the forefront of public consciousness raising about peat in the UK, illustrating the issue with numbers that are far from intuitive. For example, the Trust estimates there are 100kg of carbon locked in every cubic metre of peat; which in CO2 terms is like driving a car for 2000 miles. In their report, Natures’s Capital, we learn peatlands are the UK’s single largest carbon reserve, amounting to around 3 billion tonnes, or equivalent to 20 years’ worth of man-made CO2 emissions. Across the globe, although peat covers only 3 per cent of the global land surface, the amount of carbon stored within it is enormous – equivalent to twice that of all the world’s forests combined.

As well as dead plants, peat contains so-called ‘Black Carbon’; that is carbon captured following moorland burning. In the UK, The British Geological Survey are researching how this and other soil carbons behave, and their likely impact on climate change. Only last month, a fascinating paper in Nature Geoscience highlighted how inaccurate knowledge about the ratio of soil black carbon to organic carbon in Australia – with implications on the global scale – can result in significant (almost 25%) over-estimation of CO2 release from global warming feedback mechanisms. On a planet-wide scale, the possible swings are massive.

So – back to what we can do. First, don’t forget its not just about climate change. Peat bogs in the UK are also an important habitat for wildlife and a source of colourful diversity for us humans. I’ve passed many a happy hike literally bouncing along on Peak District peat.

You might like to get involved in one of the remediation efforts run by the National Trust. And if you’re a domestic gardener – as a group consuming seventy percent of horticultural peat in the UK, and all from drained bogs that are killed in the process of its extraction – you can make a direct impact by simply not using it. And, as the UK accounts for 8% of the world’s northern peatlands, collectively holding 30% of all soil-based carbon, you have the potential to make a real global impact in your own back garden – as it were. The golden rules are:

  • Don’t buy peat
  • Only buy pot plants bedded in non-peaty compost
  • Quiz your garden centre on its compost/peat policy; share this article!
  • Support local wildlife trusts who are working to regenerate degraded mossed areas
  • Encourage your family and friends to do likewise
  • And write to your MP

Lastly, if you want to get more involved on the policy and campaigning side, get in touch with The Peatlands Campaign Consortium, who have been a major influence on the government in setting targets for reduced peat use.

The Best Environmental Science On TV

On Monday, I joined an awards evening celebrating the best environmental science and technology productions made for European television. The categories were: drama, general programmng, new media, and an extra jury prize for exceptional content.

The MIDAS awards were hosted by PAWS – as the name suggests, a group promoting the public awareness of science. The evening also included a keynote address by Sir David King – until recently the UK’s Chief Scientific advisor, and a related panel discussion on climate change. I’ll share the messages from that in a future post.

On to the award winners. They won’t mean much outside Europe, but at least you can see the themes that are popular.

Best drama award went to the BBC‘s ‘Burn Up’ – which anticipates the lead up to Kyoto 2 in 2009 with a volatile mix of politics, science and big oil.

BBC’s Trailer to Burn Up

Best General Programming went to an edition of the Belgian VRT series Fata Morgana, about getting local people involved in environmental challenges. For four years I lived a stone’s throw away from the VRT TV tower in Brussels and, watching the clip, found the local flavour of this type of programming ‘very Belgian’ – meant in the most complimentary possible way!

Best New Media award went to Germany’s ZDF Interactive for their ‘Consequences of Climate Change’ – a truly interactive production in which viewers can explore the effect of drought and floods by keying in various parameters. This was an excellent use of new media I’m sure we will see much more of. If I can get a link to a clip or screenshots of this, I’ll post it.

The jury special prize went to The Netherland’s VPRO Television and ‘Waste equals Food’, concerned with cradle to grave understanding of products’ impacts on the environment. Examples included Nike’s design of running shoes for optimised recycling, the soles typically reappearing in sports court surfaces.

Say Hi To Kartika

Just a short note to introduce our latest adoption and to say thank you to S & J for the early Christmas present.

Kartika is a female Sulawesi Black Macaque from Indonesia, presently in the care of the Durrell Conservation Trust in Jersey.

kartika
kartika

Macaques are a ‘cheek-pouched’ monkey in the same group as baboons, guenons and vervet monkeys; but are sometimes confused with apes because their tails are so small.

Only found on the island of Sulawesi in Indonesia, the endangered black crested macaque lives in tropical forest and is a mixed ground and tree dweller.

Animal ‘adoptions’ are nice to receive and even nicer to give. They are also a good way of alerting friends and family to conservation issues.

Kartika joins two sea-turtles from the Mexican Baja California peninsula, and a lemur – so we are really quite diversified!

CalTech’s Death-Star Insight on Global Warming

WONDERING what the world will look like when the heat is on?

A newly discovered micro-fossil of an organism that lived during a previous global warming is helping researchers understand how aquatic life could adapt to the warmer, lower oxygen, waters that may accompany radical environmental transformations.

"Magnetic Death Star" - CalTech image

Dubbed the “Magnetic Death Star”, due to its round and spiky magnetite structure, the fossil was found among sediment deposited 55 million years ago during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), when surging atmospheric carbon drove temperatures 9 degrees Fahrenheit higher. CalTech and McGill University workers believe the single-celled eukaryote evolved during the PETM, only to be out-competed and disappear again when conditions cooled off (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, DOI:10.1073 / pnas.0803634105).

Sarah Palin? – Well, Apparently……..

Originally, I wanted to draw attention here to Sarah Palin’s environmental credentials, lest the topic be short-changed amidst the lively discussion of her religious beliefs. This article by Britt Collins in the Guardian was the spur; liberally illustrated with quotes from Palin and others, it includes this passage – reproduced verbatim in Collins’ contextual frame with the quote attributed to Palin bolded:

She then wrote a piece for the New York Times, saying that these “magnificent cuddly white bears are doing just fine and don’t need our protection. If the ice melts, they’ll adapt to living on land”. That is a contention most scientists found reckless, given that polar bears have shown little ability to feed on land.

Endangered

But here I came unstuck, the issue being I can’t find the quote in the cited reference (New York Times). I found this article by Palin, titled ‘Bearing Up’, and covering the right topic – but the quote’s not there. Maybe it turns up eventually, but it’s an emotive quotation, not to be spread lightly, even on a blog with Zoonomian’s embryonic circulation. So while I’m not a Palin fan, and find her potential career progression deeply worrying, that’s not the point here.

It turns out the quote has itself been quoted on several blogs concerned with climate change, conservation, or just anti-Palin; sometimes there’s a reference to the Guardian – sometimes not; but all dated after the Guardian posting.

I guess the issue is how comfortable we are in relaying information which can’t be verified – at least in the short term, even when it derives from a normally trustworthy intermediary and supports our own motives.