Image of a Dext heat recovery panel behind a restaurant stove.
As cities seek to approach carbon neutrality (for instance, Copenhagen aims to be carbon neutral by 2025), making maximum use of every unit of energy is a primary goal. Often this means capturing a second use of ‘throwaway heat,’ as Con Ed has for decades in making steam for New York City buildings as a byproduct of generating plants. Cogeneration systems are becoming the norm on multiple scales, with NYU’s cogeneration system being another prominent New York example.
For a parallel effort in maximizing energy efficiency scaled to down to the size of a small business, a company has developed a way to capture and reuse excess heat from the operations of a single restaurant kitchen.
Commercial kitchens are well known for being major energy consumers. Between ovens, stoves, walk-in refrigerators, and dish-washers, large amounts of energy are constantly being exhausted in restaurants. Unfortunately, most of this energy is wasted. When refrigerated and frozen foods are heated up at a fast rate — typically over a stove top or in an oven — only a percentage of the total heat is actually being used on the foods being cooked. The underutilized, excess heat is then vented to the open air.
The slogan of Dext Heat Recovery is a quote from Albert Einstein, “energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.” With this as their guide, the designers at Dext saw an opportunity in taking the wasted heat seen in restaurants and channeling it somewhere else that needed it: in this case, the water supply.
By recovering the waste heat generated by the cooking process via the ‘heat recovery plates’ (shown above) and converting the heat to the water circuit, a kitchen can then use the recovered heat to meet the hot water demand of the restaurant. These ‘heat recovery plates’ are installed in strategic areas of the kitchen, such as directly behind a chargrill or within a canopy overhanging a stove, where they are able to absorb the greatest amount of excess heat. After it is captured, the heat is then transferred to a buffer hot water cylinder, which is connected to the existing hot water cylinder. By pumping hot water from the buffer cylinder into the existing hot water cylinder, instead of from the mains water (which is typically always cold in temperature), less energy is needed to heat up the hot water cylinder, therefore providing recycled, more energy-efficient and cost-effective hot water for the restaurant!
Ian Urbina’s investigation of fracking waste getting disposed in rivers made fracking the top story on the cover of the times in February, 2011, a height in the fracking timeline altogether.
That article precluded a series of long-form, muck-raking reports called “Drilling Down-Series.”
As New York draws closer to the development of a hydrofracking state, groups from all over have banded together to stand up against the dawning reality.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has been known to support drilling the Marcellus Shale depository, believes the project will not only create thousands of jobs for New York residents, but will also help the United States reduce its dependency on foreign oil. To combat such a theoretically beneficial economic move, the opposition will have to be strong.
And it is.
Just a few weeks ago, 135 groups came together to organize, fund, and release an ad campaign to pressure Gov. Cuomo to stop fracking in New York.
Recognizing Cuomo’s presidential ambitions, the ad was strategically released in an Iowa newspaper–Iowa will be the home of the first presidential caucus for the next election.
The ad demands that not one well be drilled in the state of New York, urging that this is his “chance to be a national leader on climate.” For Cuomo, ignoring the demands may cost him a presidential election in 2016.
In early February, Artists Against Fracking member Yoko Ono released an ad attacking Cuomo’s refusal to ban hydrofracking in New York. Aired on New York televisions for a whole weekend, and available on Youtube, the ad criticizes highlights the severe contamination to the water supply in hydrofracking areas, and criticizes the governor’s refusal to meet with Ono. You may recognize a number of clips in the ad (below) taken from the critically acclaimed documentary, Gasland.
A recent stroke of luck has granted anti-fracking activists an additional chunk of time to better organize and grow in strength and numbers. The Department of Environmental Conservatory (DEC) and the Department of Health (DOH) have both delayed green-lighting the development of New York fracking facilities, as more time is needed for both departments to complete their reviews and assessments of the projected drilling project.
In a letter to DEC Commissioner Joseph Martens, DOH Commissioner Dr. Nirav R. Shaw stated:
“…public health is the paramount question in making the [high-volume hydraulic fracturing] HVHF decision. And as Health Commissioner, protecting the public health is my primary job….. From the inception of this process, the Governor’s instruction has been to let the science determine the outcome. As a physician and scientist, I could not agree more. Whatever the ultimate decision on HVHF going ahead, New Yorkers can be assured that it will be pursuant to a rigorous review that takes the time to examine the relevant health issues.”
With additional time, activists have taken the opportunity to raise awareness and heighten advocacy in the Empire State. On February 6, founder and leader of global grassroots movement 350.org Bill McKibben led a presentation and panel discussion at the Cooper Union in Manhattan discussing the importance of banning hydrofracking, and the fight to divest our resources in fossil fuel procurement and consumption.
McKibben showcased the accomplishments and global exposure of 350.org, which has managed to influence three universities and colleges (Hampshire, Unity, and Sterling) to divest their holdings in fossil fuel company stock, as well as two major municipalities, Seattle and San Francisco, to begin planning on how to fully and successfully divest their cities.
Despite these major accomplishments, McKibben admitted the overpowering strength of the oil companies, stating ” …Washington is just about power… on the one hand, Exxon has piled huge amounts of money so the scale tips in their direction. We have to pile enough bodies and passion and energy on the other side of the scale.” Without matching the political voice and strength of their oil tycoon counterparts, anti-frackers may be faced with a losing battle for the fight to stop hydrofracking.
But McKibben and the rest of the anti-frackers allegedly have no plans of losing.
“Forward On Climate”, an anti-fracking rally organized by 350.org and the Sierra Club, among many other organizations and funders, marched down the National Mall to the White House in Washington D.C. on February 17 to place pressure on President Barack Obama to ban construction of the Keystone Pipeline. The pipeline, if passed, would cut through the entire Midwest, transporting hydrofracked fossil-fuels from the Athabasca oil sands in Alberta, Canada, risking the water quality and environmental integrity of the projected pipeline area.
The impacts of the rally may have had an effect on Governor Cuomo’s decision to continue plans for developing a hydrofracturing system in New York. President Obama’s decision on the KeystoneXL will likely further influence his choices.
In the most recent State of the Union address, the President took a strong stance on energy, stating the need for Americans “to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science and [to] act before it’s too late.” He urged Congress to propose a policy allowing a percentage of oil and gas revenue to fund an Energy Security Trust. The funds from such a trust would then be reserved for new research and technology in cleaner, renewable energy production.
Obama did express the importance of more affordable, less foreign-dependent oil and natural gas (which may be a subtle hint that he supports a Keystone Pipeline and a New York drilling project), yet he simultaneously stressed the need to “shift our cars and trucks off oil for good.”
Nonetheless, the coming weeks will be a pivotal time for the future of New York and the rest of the nation. Eyes are on our elected officials and politicians to see what direction they will take us in the future of American energy production. Voices will certainly be raised in these same weeks with great volume and intensity, and the same politicians and officials will have to hear them. In such monumental times, make sure your voice does not go unheard.
The campaign for Helen Rosenthal for City Council is hosting an event both about food and also fracking.
Lisa Suriano and Joy Pierson, co-chairs of the New York Coalition for Healthy School Food, will talk about introducing plant-based entrees and nutrition education for children’s health and the environment.
Angela Monti Fox, mother of famed “Gas Land” filmmaker, Josh Fox, and, founder of The Mother’s Project, will talk about fracking. The Mother’s Project is a campaign that unites mothers on environmental shale gas issues.
Five moms from the District 3 Schools Group will talk about composting in school cafeterias.
(Must RSVP to rsvp@Helenrosenthal.com. Be sure to know where donations go to).
I live near Columbus Circle, so Central Park and Lincoln Center are my favorite places to hang around during my leisure time. I personally find it extremely appealing to spend a nice afternoon reading under the shades in Lincoln Center with a cup of tea, while listening to the sound of practicing musicians floating on the air from Juilliard across the street.
Located in the heart of Manhattan, Lincoln Center is a bastion for New York City’s cultural life and one of the most renowned venues for performance in the world. It is the home of eleven of the world’s great arts institutions, attracting millions of visitors each year to thousands of performances, educational programs, tours, and other events.
Given that it is one of the world’s leading performing arts center, it is inspiring to see that Lincoln Center is also helping to lead the world towards greater environmental sustainability. Recently, it has become the first performing arts center in the city to be entirely run on wind power. As explained in Treehugger, “100% of Lincoln Center’s 21.6 million kilowatt-hours of electricity used each year are now supplied via renewable energy certificates (RECs) purchased from Green Mountain Energy Company. Also included in the transformation is Juilliard, which in the past was partially powered from renewable energy, but this is also 100% wind power.” In terms of environmental benefits, “Lincoln Center touts the wind power purchase as being the equivalent of avoiding 50,500 tons of CO2 emissions—or recycling 170 million Playbills rather than putting them into the landfill, or not taking 41 million taxi rides.” This purchase compliments the completion of Lincoln Center’s recent $1.2 billion transformation, which includes a new U.S. Green Building Council LEED Gold certified building, the David Rubenstein Atrium.
Running wind power at Lincoln Center does not imply the installation of wind turbines. Instead, it works by a payment for Renewable Energy Certificates (REC’s), with the renewable energy being generated elsewhere. Also known as green tags, these certificates represent the property rights to the environmental, social, and other nonpower qualities of renewable electricity generation. They are energy commodities in the United States that represent proof that 1 megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity was generated from an eligible renewable energy resource. RECs provide buyers flexibility in procuring green power across a diverse geographical arc, and in applying the renewable attributes to the electricity use at any facility. Lincoln Center is tied to the grid with a renewable-based generator that produces physical electricity, in addition to the RECs. The RECs are responsible for the benefits of renewable electricity. Put simply, RECs are a way to vote for sustainability with your wallet by driving up demand for renewables.
Lincoln Center has done this in a major way, indicating that they are willing to invest in clean, renewable energy. In the long run, this will have benefits well beyond the direct positive effects of Lincoln Center’s REC purchases, as more and more people see that a cultural leader like Lincoln Center is committed to sustainability.
A windmill is a machine that converts the energy of wind into rotational energy by means of vanes called sails or blades. Or giants… depending on your source. Along with solar power and tidal power, windmills are considered one of the best sources of renewable energy. Europe has been a leader in harnessing wind power, and in the United States use of wind is growing rapidly — and Republican and Democratic senators alike recently joined forces to preserve the incentives that are helping wind power to develop.
The majority of the windmills are located in Texas and Oregon, but New York has its own windmills, too, and New York City is already reaping the benefits of this kind of energy. According to a CUNY study, ”New York City’s largest commercial construction firms say that energy efficient and sustainably designed construction is firmly in place, and not a trend waiting to happen at some time in the future. It is being driven both by customer preference and leadership from the public sector, through regulation and role modeling.”
It would not be feasible to build gigantic windmills in the crowded Manhattan, but it’s important for citizens to be mindful of where their energy comes from, and opt for both greener energy providers and local green energy solutions. My hometown in New Jersey has installed streetlight posts that are powered by solar panels. It’s more than an ecological measure— although costly up front, these solar panels will save the city and citizens money through operation savings and green initiatives. NYC is the perfect place to experiment with new technologies for high density locales.
It is important to spread good sustainable ideas, but also to put such ideas into practice. I’ve already opted for another greener energy producer company, and I encourage others to explore more sustainable energy options. The US Department of Energy provides a comprehensive list of green power suppliers across the US; Con Ed also has an informational site.
Research what your energy provider is doing to become greener. The impact that we have on the environment is not a matter of affecting others in some distant future, but a matter of immediate effects on the planet and on each of us, right now. It’s time to be smart about where we get our energy. The technology is here, but now it’s a matter of will. Now we just need to stop fighting windmills.
Sabes que es un Molino de Viento? Un Molino de Viento, según Wikipedia “es una máquina que convierte la energía del viento en energía rotacional a través de hélices llamadas velas o cuchillas”. Los mismos molinos de viento que Don Quijote imaginaba como gigantes con los que debía batallar.
Junto con la energía solar y la energía de mareas, los molinos de viento han sido considerados como una de las mejores fuentes de energía renovable en el mundo. Y Europa ha sido uno de los países que mejor uso ha hecho de este tipo de energía. Sin embargo, como muchos otros países conscientes de los problemas ecológicos, Estados Unidos se ha unido al grupo en un esfuerzo conjunto por ser más amable con el planeta.
Y aún cuando la mayoría de los molinos de viento están en Texas, Portland y otros estados (dado que dichos molinos requieren grandes cantidades de acres vírgenes), N.Y.C ya esta recibiendo los beneficios de dicha energía renovable, y el mismo estado de Nueva York tiene ya sus propios molinos de viento. Sí, y los mismos Neoyorkinos, tienen la posibilidad de escoger la compañía de energía que más les guste a la hora de pagar por este servicio.
Según un estudio realizado por CUNY, ”las firmas constructoras más grande de la ciudad de Nueva York afirman que la energia eficiente y la construcción diseñada sosteniblemente es algo real, y no una moda esperando a suceder en un futuro cercano. Es un hecho que esta haciendo desarrollado tanto por consumidores como por el sector publico, a través de modelos de regulación”.
Y aunque sería poco factible construir estos molinos de viento gigantes en esta ciudad repleta de edificios, es importante que seamos lo suficientemente receptivos a todo tipo de ideas ecológicas vengan de donde vengan, si lo que queremos es hacer de N.Y.C una ciudad mejor y más respirable. Por lo menos, la ciudad donde yo vivo en NJ, la mayoría de los postes de luz en las calles funcionan con energía solar. Algo que no es simplemente una medida ecologica, sino un ahorro para la ciudad y los mismos ciudadanos.
Sin embargo, como no soy una experta en el tema de la energía renovable y las políticas sobre electricidad que existen en cada ciudad, esto, es mas bien un llamado no a ser optimistas, sino a ser creativamente realistas. Yo creo que N.Y.C es el lugar perfecto para ser recursivo, dado el grado de multiculturalidad y la crisis económica que aún se esta viviendo.
Es importante diseminar buenas ideas de sostenibilidad, pero sobre todo, ponerlas en práctica. Personalmente, yo ya opte por cambiarme a una compañía energética más comprometida con el medio ambiente y espero qeu esto le sirva no sólo a la ciudad, sino al planeta entero. Tal vez es tiempo para que cada uno de nosotros empiece a pensar que comprometerse con el medio ambiente no es más una cosa de otros y del futuro, sino de cada uno de nosotros ahora.
As the world focuses its attention on the spectacle of the London Summer Olympic Games, we are glued to the television in awe of the athletic prowess, ceremonial majesty, and sheer enormity of this massive endeavor. However, hosting major events like the Olympics requires a huge investment of money and resources behind the scenes and often results in negative environmental impacts.
Happily, London has set a new standards for green technology and infrastructure in part by establishing a global standard for sustainable event management – ISO 20121. Organizers also developed a “food vision” program that maintains sustainable sourcing standards for the more than 14 million meals that will be served at the Games.
In a New York Times interview with David Stubbs, the head of sustainability for the London Olympic Organization Committee, Stubbs explained that significant attention has been given to the long-term legacy and role of the Olympic structures after it was predicted that the embodied carbon of construction materials would create the largest impact on the Games’ carbon footprint.
As a result, temporary, recyclable structures were erected for venues that would not be of long-term use to the city. Additionally, the permanent venues that were constructed utilize the latest in green technology and awareness: sustainably sourced timber, recycled construction materials, lightweight roofs that save thousands of tons of steel in their design, extensive natural lighting, and even rainwater harvesting.
Aesthetically, the stadiums appear to be the same world-class structures that we’re used to seeing at the Olympics. Most people won’t realize the enormous amount of attention London has given to its green stadiums, but the design and construction of these monuments reflect about a decade’s worth of sustainability research and thought.
This raises the bar for other events, and begs the question: how green are our stadiums here in the United States? Very few people, when attending a major entertainment or sporting event, think about how green the stadium is or what impact the event they are at will have on the environment. But they should. Stadiums are enormous structures that utilize immense amounts of energy when they put on events for thousands of individuals consuming food, paper material, and water. We don’t always think about the water required to keep fields green, or the millions of lightbulbs that go into those enormous video boards, or the fact that carbon emissions per team per game (in terms of travel, energy use, concessions, etc.) can be up to 716 tons. That’s around 17 times the amount of an average American household expends every year.
There is hope. Stadiums are becoming increasingly greener in the United States. More and more facilities are turning to energy-efficient technologies such as solar panels and wind turbines for energy, increased use of recycled materials for things ranging from construction materials to programs, and the introduction of water management systems. Some teams, such as the Philadelphia Eagles, have made incredible leaps in terms of sustainability; 100% of the power used during home games comes from wind technologies. The Natural Resources Defense Council has even put together a guide for clubs and stadium owners looking to implement the use of solar energy.
Here in New York, we’re not doing too poorly. The MetLife stadium is made of more than 40,000 tons of recycled steel, aims to cut water consumption by a quarter through the use of low-flow toilet fixtures and waterless urinals, and uses eco-friendly material for concessions. The new stadium is more than twice the size of the old stadium (in terms of square footage), yet there’s been a reduction of energy usage by almost 30%. And the total carbon footprint of games is much lower compared to other teams due to widespread use of public transit.
Stadiums can always be greener, though. Whether you’re a die-hard sports fan, or a concerned citizen, or both, it’s important that you let your home team know how important it is to you that they keep up the good work. In terms of sustainability, we’re not striking out… but we’re not hitting a home run, either.
Find out more about New York teams’ green initiatives by visiting the sustainability websites of the Yankees, the Mets, and the Giants.
Electric vehicles may become more common on the city streets. One year ago, NYC’s first Electric Vehicle (EV) charging station was developed in Brooklyn. Electric cars store electrical energy in a battery or another device that requires charging. Because they don’t run on gasoline, the use of electric vehicles reduces air pollution, and, depending on how the electricity is generated, can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as dependency on fossil fuels. Government officials also hope that the development of EV infrastructure will boost economic development and create jobs along with reducing New Yorkers’ carbon footprint. In June, Governor Cuomo announced the development of 325 new EV charging stations across New York State.
Around 18,000 electric vehicles were sold in 2011 in the United States and some manufacturers project 100,000 electric car sales in 2012. Though electric cars are typically limited to private usage, the biggest impact of the technology might be in its use in the commercial sector. Transportation of goods accounts for a huge percentage of miles driven in US everyday, so the wide-scale adoption of commercial electric vehicles could have a huge impact. This may in part account for the U.S. Department of Energy offer of vouchers to reduce the cost of purchasing a commercial EV.
Even better for the Bronx, Smith Electric Trucks plans to set up a manufacturing facility in the borough, bringing 100 jobs to Hunts Point. Wider use of electric delivery vehicles would bring immediate benefits in cutting the number of idling diesel engines crowding New York’s streets and avenues.
If you are a private driver of an electric car, you’ll probably need to plan ahead to make sure that you know where to find available and EV charging stations in NYC. Several maps and guides are in development, but according to Ariel Schwartz, “the definitive charging station guide in the U.S. is the PlugShare app, which both displays a list of nearby public charging stations and allows users to share their own electric outlets and search for charge spots located inside or outside other people’s garages. So far, PlugShare has 2,500 outlets listed.” We’re sure that consumer options will continue to pop up as more electric cars appear on the road.
Some people associate electric cars with high prices, though the vehicle prices have lowered in the last years at the same time car manufacturers have put more effort in developing user-friendly and aesthetically-pleasing vehicles. For the rest of us, there’s the really big electric cars, known as the subway.
Los vehículos eléctricos son más visibles actualmente en las calles de la ciudad. Hace un año, la primera estación de EV fue desarrollada en Brooklyn, y ahora el gobernador Cuomo acaba de mencionar que alrededor de 325 estaciones para vehículos eléctricos serán construidas en el estado de Nueva York. Estos autos funcionan con energía almacenada en una batería o en otro componente, y su uso no solo reduce la contaminación del aire, la emisión de gases de efecto invernadero sino también la dependencia económica de otros países. Por eso, de cuerdo al mismo Cuomo, el desarrollo de infraestructura para vehículos eléctricos podría darle un empujón a la economía, generar trabajos y reducir el carbono producido por los Neoyorkinos
Aproximadamente 18.000 unidades fueron vendidas en el 2011 en los Estados Unidos y las compañías que los fabrican están planeando vender aún más autos para el 2012. Aunque este tipo de vehículos son requeridos en su mayoría para el uso privado, el impacto que pueden causar en el sector publico sería mayor. El transporte de bienes representa un gran porcentaje de millas conducidas en los Estados Unidos cada día, de manera que la adopción de los vehículos eléctricos a gran escala, generaría un gran impacto. Esto podría representar la reducción de oferta de bonos emitidos por el Departamento de Energía para quienes adquieren un vehiculo eléctrico.
Si usted es un conductor de un auto eléctrico actualmente, es buena idea que empiece a planear en donde encontrar estaciones de recarga eléctrica en la ciudad. Diversos mapas y guias están siendo desarrollados, pero según Ariel Schwartz, :la guía definitiva de estaciones de vehículos eléctricos esta en la aplicación PlugShare, que muestra un listado de estaciones públicas cercanas y permite a los usuarios compartir sus propios toma-corrientes de sus propias casas con los de otro usuarios. Hasta ahora, dicha aplicación, tiene una lista de 2.500 toma-corrientes. “Estamos seguros de que los consumidores tendrán cada vez más un número mayor de opciones a medida que más vehículos son diseñados y lanzados al Mercado”.
Y para quienes pensaban que su precio o su dudosa estética era una excusa, lo cierto es que mientras el precio ha caído lo suficiente los últimos años como para contemplar una seria posibilidad de compra, muchas compañías productoras se han esforzado por desarrollar lineas más amigablemente estéticas.
When most people in the United States hear the word “sustainability” in relation to transportation, they immediately (and guiltily) think of high carbon emissions, traffic congestion, the impending end of the world and, most likely, odd-looking hybrid vehicles. What emerges is an image of transportation as something that inevitably adds to pollution and environmental crisis— transportation as part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.
Projjal Dutta believes that transportation, specifically public rapid-transit, is a large part of the energy solution. As the Director of Sustainability Initiatives at the MTA, Mr. Dutta is in charge of making the MTA more “environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable.” This means making the MTA more efficient and able to withstand the effects of climate change, such as the excessive flooding in August of 2007. But it also means changing the way people view and use public transportation, in New York, in the United States, and in the world as a whole.
When Mr. Dutta came to visit us in the City Atlas office, we were bracing ourselves for the traditional “you waste a lot, and want a lot” speech. And it came… kind of. Mr. Dutta showed us a comparative map of energy consumption. The numbers were shocking, even given our expectations.
The United States consumes a ton of energy per capita: measured a different way, in 2005, U.S. per capita consumption was around 340 MBtus (British thermal units, a traditional unit of energy equal to about 1.055 KJoules). Compare this to Germany’s 178, or India’s 14, and you can see that the U.S. is a distinctly heavy consumer of energy. (Japan, not shown, is about 152 MBtus per capita.)
If you look at New York City though, the per capita energy consumption is a little more than a quarter of the national average, coming in at around 88.5 MBtus.
That’s still not great, but it’s a heck of a lot better than Texas’ 496. The really shocking thing though was the energy breakdown. The World Resources Institute in 2005 showed that Germany spent around 27 percent of its energy consumption on transportation. In the United States, almost half of energy consumption was from transportation.
Mr. Dutta explained that this disparity of energy use has a lot to do with density. Americans love suburbs. Take a low-rise suburban office park and a tall urban building. The high-rise can accommodate just as many people as the entire office park, and consumes less energy in terms of building operations (heating, etc) and materials. But the real difference is in the energy costs of transportation. The majority of people who work in the low-rise office park commute to work using single occupancy vehicles. That’s so much energy expended on transportation!
Density breeds carbon efficiency. Not only is it easier to save energy on maintenance and construction, but it also means that everyone is closer to everything. You don’t have to drive to get to the store, and your kids use the subway to get to school. Mr. Dutta showed us that in the United States, transportation generates approximately 40 percent of all green-house gases, with most of this coming from single occupancy vehicles. On a per-passenger basis, emissions coming from single occupancy vehicles are up to five times higher than the per-passenger mile emissions of mass transit.
Public transit’s contribution to overall carbon avoidance has three key factors. Mode shift, from single occupancy transportation to rapid mass transit. By using public transit, we avoid single occupancy vehicle use and the emissions coming from that. Land use— local mass transit allows for the elimination of parking lots, as well as leading to higher density communities, allowing for shorter commutes and sometimes eliminating the need for vehicles altogether. And congestion— the decrease of vehicle traffic due to a good mass transit system allows for the vehicles that are still on the road to run more efficiently, decreasing total greenhouse gas emissions. Having an effective and efficient mass transit system allows for increased density, but also encourages increased density. Mr. Dutta had pictures of areas that, over the twenty years following the installation of a rapid transit system, developed significantly. This finding detracts from the idea that it’s useless to build service lines to less-populated areas. It’s the field of dreams, transportation edition: if you build it, they will come. And it’s really true.
Mr. Dutta’s presentation left City Atlas with many conclusions, and a lot to think about. The main takeaways were that New York City has done a great job in terms of carbon avoidance: we’ve broken out of the automobile paradigm, and the related wasteful suburban sprawl. Sure, maybe this happened all by accident (it has been noted that NYC’s density and layout occurred largely as a result of a failure of urban planning), but it still makes the city exceptional. And, looking at the breakdown of energy consumption in the United States, it’s really clear that improving the way in which we move is key. We can build a ton of “green buildings,” but it’s also important that people get to these buildings in ways other than commuting in single-occupancy vehicles.
The world is urbanizing, and rapidly. Other U.S. cities need to embrace rapid mass transit as a way to support density and sustainable growth. America should set the example of what sustainable cities look like. We have the resources; we just need the will. Cities need to embrace rapid transit as a solution, and improve existing transportation systems. We can’t wait for some future date to make rapid transit a global reality. Everyone kind of knows this in the back of their brains, but Mr. Dutta’s working to bring efficient and effective public transit to the forefront of cities’ agendas. And people have a lot of changing to do, too. We need to stop thinking of public transit as a last resort, or something that is only for lower-income people who can’t afford cars. New York is a great example of public-transit-gone-right. Here, public transit is cheap, green, convenient, and for everyone. Now: the rest of the country, and the world.
Think of a big tanker truck full of gas — that’s approximately your personal budget. Not for today, not this year, but forever.
Columbia University physicist Klaus Lackner has received quite a lot of attention for his artificial “tree” invention that can suck carbon from the air a thousand times faster than real trees. The idea for the tree was originally inspired by his daughter Claire’s eighth-grade science project a decade ago, which involved extracting carbon dioxide from the air using a fish tank pump and sodium hydroxide. For his invention, Lackner also drew on the natural structure of one of nature’s most successful carbon absorbers — leaves. At Columbia University’s Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy, where Lackner is director, he and his colleague, Allen Wright, are still finessing elements of the “tree.”
Maria Ioshpa, a senior at Stuyvesant High School, spoke with Lackner and Allen Wright about the potential of this innovation in helping tackle climate change:
Let’s start at the beginning — how do we arrive at a need for air capture technologies like an industrial material that acts as an artificial tree?
Klaus Lackner:
Some people argue about how much CO2 we are really allowed to have in the air: should the limit be 450 parts per million? Some people say no, 350 ppm was already too much. Other people are still saying 450 is all right, maybe 550 is all right. And it doesn’t really matter what you think is all right, because once you’ve gotten to that point, the only way to prevent CO2 levels from going higher is to — for all practical purposes — stop putting CO2 in the air.
Why is that?
Klaus Lackner:
If you want to stop at 450 ppm, how many tons of CO2 are in the personal CO2 budget of the average person on the planet? It turns out, about 30 tons. Think of a big tanker truck full of gasoline or jet fuel which you may have seen in an airport next to an airplane trying to fill that up — that’s approximately your personal budget. Not for today, not this year, but forever — for you, for your children, and for your children’s children. So every time you go somewhere in a car, you fill it up out of that truck. Every time you fly somewhere you pull it out of that truck. Every time you have Thanksgiving and you have a turkey and turn on the gas stove, you have to take it out of that truck — and it turns out the average person in the US goes through a truck like this in five years. So our budget is gone in five years from now. The world’s budget is gone in about 30 years from now because most people don’t consume as much as we do. Some are a little more careful with it. Some are just too poor to consume it. So at the end of the day you have not much time left to stop.
(Klaus Lackner, Director of the Lenfest Center; video by Justin Strauss)
I know this tree creation isn’t magic, although it nearly seems that way. How did you come up with the concept, how does it work, and how much does it cost to operate?
Allen Wright:
The basis is a plastic leaf that has the property of being a vehicle for “air capture.” By air capture, I’m talking about the removal of carbon dioxide from ambient air; from the air outside. If you took all the CO2 out of a block of air roughly the size of a card table, you would just about fill a teacup. Our job is to remove that teacup’s worth of CO2 from any given block of air, concentrate it, and deliver it as a stream of pure CO2. This is different than the removal of CO2 from a concentrated source, such as the exhaust from a power plant or the exhaust pipe on a car.
Consider a situation in which someone is running an old coal power plant somewhere in the world that continues to put CO2 in the air, then what can we do to compensate for the power plant’s emissions? Well, air capture, and this material [holds up artificial pine branch] allows us to take the CO2 out of the air that they have put in.
Does it matter where the CO2 is being emitted? Do you need to set up these trees in the same location?
I think this won’t by itself solve the problem. Scrubbing CO2 from the air is one weapon in the arsenal; by itself it’s not good enough.
Allen Wright:
Actually, one of the reasons we want to remove carbon dioxide from the air is to capture emissions that are occurring in other parts of the world. It turns out that the atmosphere in the world is very well mixed. So if you put CO2 into the air in California, in no time at all that CO2 is very well mixed into the air and you can very effectively take it out of the air in New York City. Now, if you put a ton of CO2 in the air, and you remove a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere somewhere else, you have effectively eliminated the impact of that ton of CO2.
This material has a funny characteristic. In a dry environment (like in the summertime on a hot day, or in the desert), this has a very strong affinity for CO2; CO2 in the air wants to bind with the molecules on the surface of this plastic. In a wet or very humid environment (like it would be here in New York in the summer, or in the tropics), the humidity causes the CO2 to come off of this material and go back into the air.
Well, that’s really neat because that means all the energy we have to use comes from the evaporation of the water off of this as it dries. So, we take this material, which is full of CO2 from being out in the air, and we scrunch it up and put it in a tube, make it wet, and all the CO2 is going to come off of this material and into the gas stream. Then, we can suck that CO2 off and we can deliver it as a stream of carbon dioxide gas. So now we have this material that is wet and empty of CO2, and all we have to do is stick this outside, and if it’s dry outside, the water will evaporate off of this material, and it will revert to the state where CO2 can bind to it again.
And so, in essence, this is a CO2 pump: it takes CO2 from the air and pumps it and delivers it into this stream. This will work over and over for years and years.
(Allen Wright, Senior Staff Associate)
How many of the tree samples that you have shown me would be necessary to reduce significantly the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Klaus Lackner:
Of those little ones, an awful lot. But you have an awful lot of trees too. So we figured out how to package them for a device which can collect one ton per day and that would fit into a big truck, into a shipping container. Such a unit can collect much more CO2 than your car puts out. You don’t put a ton of CO2 out in a day.
And you would need millions of those one-ton-a-day units, but that’s not so bad if you think about it: If you had ten million such units you would take back 3.6 gigatons of CO2 a year, and right there that’s about 10 or 12 percent of the world’s yearly CO2 output. That’s a pretty good start.
If the air capture units last ten years, then each year you have to build a million new ones to replace the old ones, creating a production line of one million units a year. Now the world is producing 70 million cars and trucks a year, so we can do manufacturing on that scale — we do that with automobiles already. So we could make this happen on a scale that is meaningful.
What’s fascinating is that your process and your invention can be seen as a potentially powerful investment if we put a price on carbon.
Klaus Lackner:
I do want to point out that we are working with a private company, Kilimanjaro Energy, which is actually trying to figure out whether there is a market for CO2.
Would the creation of these air capture devices be a sort of magic pill, making people less inclined to stop the production of CO2 because of it?
We have two choices: we make it totally expensive to contribute to the problem, so that people opt not to, or we pay for whatever it takes to avoid the problem in the first place.
Klaus Lackner:
It’s a complicated question. Will this tempt you to not deal with the problem? Let me turn this around: What other options do you have?
Furthermore, I think this won’t by itself solve the problem. Scrubbing CO2 from the air is one weapon in the arsenal; by itself it’s not good enough. Clearly there are other places where other strategies are more economical. If you had a power plant and you were to scrub the CO2 out of the power plant that would be much smarter. If you had power which didn’t make CO2 in the first place that would be very useful. But you do end up with some fraction of power that for a long time will emit CO2 because we have that infrastructure, and because it’s actually very difficult to get rid of liquid fuels.
So to come back to your question regarding whether this will encourage people to ignore the problem for a while: The answer is, maybe for some people it does. But the flip side of the problem is: you may not have a choice anymore but to take back CO2. You need some way of pulling the CO2 out of the air, and forests are not quite fast enough.
How much of a role do people’s choices play in this discussion?
Klaus Lackner:
I’m not particularly an advocate for the idea that we have to give up liquid fuels. What I am arguing is that if you successfully remove the problem that liquid fuels create, and you pay for removing that problem, then there’s nothing wrong with using liquid fuels. If you can’t fix the problem or it is too expensive, then you have to find another solution. And in the long run, we cannot let CO2 pile up in the atmosphere. So we have to find answers.
Now, with individual choices it’s always easy to say, ‘I’m such a little bit that it doesn’t matter so I’m ok.’ I’m always amused when I go to a conference and we all talk about how much CO2 everybody emits, and then I proceed to ask a “dumb” question: “How did you all get here?” And the participants all came on long intercontinental airplane trips. When I follow up by asking how much CO2 each participant caused to be emitted on that flight, I am often met with a response to the effect that, since the trip was taken for a good cause, the output in that case doesn’t count. That may well be true, but if we all think that way, we’ll never fix the problem.
So we have two choices: we make it totally expensive to contribute to the problem, such that people opt not to, or we pay for whatever it takes to avoid the problem in the first place. And of course it’s not just one — there are many problems associated with fossil fuel. The first and immediately most important one is that it puts greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But there are other issues as well. Mining is hazardous and often environmentally difficult business, so you have to figure out how to fix that too. You have work on all of these pieces, but currently the most pressing is CO2.
What can the younger generation do to fix this problem? What careers can they enter to help solve it?
…if you are worried about the planet, there are still many ways to get involved. It is not one size fits all, and I can’t even tell you which one is more important.
Klaus Lackner:
I think it’s not just one career — there are very many different paths. I would argue that what we at the Earth Institute call “sustainable development” has many different pieces to it that are so central to the problem. We’re being challenged environmentally. We have technologies to address energy and transportation issues; we have technologies for a lot of things. Where we run into trouble rather routinely right now is the environmental footprint of the things we do.
So we have to figure out how to make those footprints smaller, and that involves people from different facets of our entire society. You can decide that you want to be a political scientist, and there are plenty of relevant policy questions to address there. You can decide to become an engineer and solve the problems by looking at the engineering issues. You can become a scientist, and a lot more of science today is focused on how, precisely, the planet works and on what the environmental issues are that come with it. You can also become an astrophysicist and you would not be particularly concerned with this planet, but if you are worried about the planet, there are still many ways to get involved. It is not one size fits all, and I can’t even tell you which one is more important. Adding to that, politicians are perfectly willing to find a good solution if they feel like there is a solution, but as long as the engineers don’t provide anything, nothing much will happen. And if the engineers aren’t focused on these problems, nothing will happen either. So you have to get all of the various fields and disciplines together, and push in the right direction in whatever field you end up in.
Do you have any general advice for environmentally-conscious people?
Klaus Lackner:
That is a very difficult question. In my opinion, you have to combine realism with optimism because if you can’t do that, you feel like the problems are all so daunting and you’re not coming out of the other side. Realism means that you look at the issues and recognize that there are real problems that require real solutions and then start working on solutions. Don’t start from the premise the world is coming to an end; be an optimist, but be a cautious optimist and make this optimism real.
What can initiatives like City Atlas do to help your cause?
Klaus Lackner:
By making carbon footprints and other environmental impacts more visible, by getting people excited, you’re getting the message out there. The issue right now is that nothing happens, because there’s no political will to make it happen, and the political will can only come from informing the public. I think there are a lot of messages out there that are saying we’re all doomed, and that’s there’s nothing we can do. And that message doesn’t rally people to do something. I think it’s better to say that here’s a problem, and here’s a solution. It may not be the only solution, it may not be the best solution, but at least it means there’s a way out. This creates hope, which leads to the assurance to start asking questions like, “Can’t we do better?” And if you come up with something better, I’ll take it.
About Klaus Lackner:
Klaus Lackner is the Ewing Worzel Professor of Geophysics at Columbia University, where he is also the Director of the Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy, the Chair of the Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering, and a member of the Earth Institute faculty. Lackner’s current research interests include carbon capture and sequestration, air capture, energy systems and scaling properties (including synthetic fuels and wind energy), energy and environmental policy, lifecycle analysis, and zero emission modeling for coal and cement plants.
Lackner earned his degrees from Heidelberg University, Germany: the Vordiplom, (equivalent to a B.S.) in 1975; the Diplom (or M.S.) in 1976; and his Ph.D. in theoretical particle physics, summa cum laude, in 1978. He was awarded the Clemm-Haas Prize for his outstanding Ph.D. thesis at Heidelberg University. Lackner held postdoctoral positions at the California Institute of Technology and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center before beginning his professional career, and he attended Cold Spring Harbor Summer School for Computational Neuroscience in 1985. Lackner was also awarded the Weapons Recognition of Excellence Award in 1991 and the National Laboratory Consortium Award for Technology in 2001.
About the Lenfest Center:
The Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy focuses primarily on developing the next generation of carbon capture and storage technologies, as well as technologies that will improve energy efficiency and thus reduce carbon emissions. The center, part of The Earth Institute, Columbia University, is also engaged in policy research and outreach on a variety of energy topics, with a common emphasis on sustainability and climate change.
___
Photography by Justin Strauss
Editorial assistance: Rebecca Cress, Maureen Mitra; Thanks to Pamela Lambert and Harvey Blumm at Stuyvesant High School
Two weeks ago, MTA Director of Sustainability Projjal Dutta enlightened attendees at the Green Festival by pulling back the curtain on something we thought we all knew: the MTA.
New Yorkers rely on the trains and buses to get us where we need to be, when we need to be there. Almost as inherent to MTA city travel as the sound of screeching brakes is the griping and groaning we do while on board. Why isn’t the train here faster? Why does it stop in the middle of the tunnel? Why don’t they run more crosstown buses? We’re really good at being critical of the system, some with vocal indignation and others with more mild resignation, and few of us has probably ever really stopped to think critically about this system we love to hate.
I spent my first 5 years in NYC in a love/hate relationship with the MTA. I loved when the M15 Limited got me from 14th to 96th in 15 minutes, but I hated when the 6 was so packed I had to let three trains go by and be late to work. I recognized and appreciated that the MTA let me never need or want a car and allowed me to be exponentially greener than my suburban counterparts, but I came to abandon my petty grievances and love the MTA wholeheartedly after reading Projjal’s interview for City Atlas where he explains the basic structure of the system and how the MTA is in fact doing a whole lot to be greener.
In his presentation at Green Festival (Taking the Car out of Carbon) he outlined just how much credit the MTA deserves for reducing carbon emissions. The MTA’s 2012 Earth Day Report on Sustainability found that every subway or bus trip prevents 10.4 pounds of carbon from being released, for a whopping 17 million metric tons collectively. The scale of the system allows it to be green in a way that has an instant and significant impact, a way that recycling your kombucha bottle simply doesn’t.
The scale of the system is an asset but also a liability. Mr. Dutta explained that because most of the underground infrastructure of the extensive system was built in the early 1900s, simply maintaining it for 24/365 use is the full time job of many. For all Projjal’s prestigious credits, among them certification as a LEED A.P. and MIT graduate, he has a knack for illustrating concepts in palatable ways. When an audience member at Green Festival complained about the constant route changes for construction and asked why they didn’t “just fix things right and upgrade them the first time so they wouldn’t have to continuously make repairs,” he didn’t gloss over the question with a boiler plate response one might expect of a city employee; he smiled and offered the following analogy: “how many things do you have that belonged to your grandparents? How many of them to you still use? How many of them do you use all day long every day of the year? How many of them do you share with millions of friends?” Obviously we can’t shut down the entire system for a year to take it out and replace it with an entirely new one, so the MTA is charged with coming up with creative ways to repair a system that is constantly in use.
In his presentation, Projjal used many graphics to illustrate how carbon emissions from driving are indisputably the most massive factor in greening our lives and the planet. He boldly stated that recycling, organic food, and plant based materials mean nothing if you’re driving to get them. He argues that climate change is in large part a result of the emissions from driving. In a fascinating micro-history of Eisenhower and American politics, Projjal explained how a shift in land use and population density resulting in response to the creation of the U.S. interstate system created a nation of drivers and carbon emitters. He offers the important distinction that cars themselves aren’t what pollute the planet and make us fat, driving them is. When you create a system of transit that fosters population density and practical land use, you create a system that does good things for the environment and better things for people.
Mr. Dutta also addressed how the MTA spends billions of dollars fortifying itself against flooding and other problems resulting from climate change, a problem to which the MTA system itself contributes next to nothing. He asked listeners to consider that the reason they don’t see more new trains and technology is because funds often have to be diverted to immediate problem solving for circumstances (often weather related) beyond their control; in these situations the MTA receives no extra funds for making these system amendments, consequently leaving them with less capital for the kinds of visible and meaningful-to-rider improvements (like countdown clocks and new trains with LED strips) that many riders lament the lack of.
Reconceptualizing the MTA and just taking time to pause on the platform to consider just how many hurdles that 2 train has to overcome to make it to the station may be tough, but it’s possible. Perhaps the most helpful grain of information for better understanding why the MTA works the way it does is to consider where the money comes from. The MTA is not a city agency; it’s a state one. Funding for the city’s buses and trains comes from Albany, not City Hall. When the policy makers all drove on state roads to get to their transit budget meeting, well, they just tend to put those roads before new signal switches for the BDFM and the millions who rely on the MTA annually.
Verdant Power has been awarded the first US license for a tidal power generation system. Over the next two years, 30 underwater turbines will be installed on the bottom of the East River and begin to provide hydropower for 10,000 residents of Roosevelt Island. Verdant has been testing parts of the system in the East River since 2002, and with this license, has moved forward to full scale practical application. Read more about the project at Inhabitat and Bloomberg News.
Solar One and the NYC Department of Education have teamed up on an energy education program for public schools, to both save power and engage students: the Green Design Lab.
“The basic premise of the program has kind of a triple bottom line impact,” said Executive Director Chris Collins. “Reduce energy use, reduce CO2 emissions, and save the school money and increase student knowledge.”
Candlelight Tours | City AtlasJoin a tour focusing on lighting technology and architectural features, using the Wyckoff House as a template. Learn about lighting options, access to materials and finished goods, and the nighttime tasks people could expect to accomplish under different lighting conditions from the colonial area to the beginning of the 20th century.
GreenHomeNYC Green Careers MeetUp | City AtlasThe Green Careers MeetUp is a social event for those who are both looking to break in and have recently broken into the green career field. The idea behind this is to have a short and informal one hour meeting about everyone’s current pursuits and successes and maybe to exchange some job postings that have not yet gone viral.
While City Atlas is primarily a resource for New Yorkers to see all the great sustainability initiatives their neighbors are already engaged in and how they can get involved–so we can get our multiplier effect on–there is of course the bigger picture. You don’t see a tremendous amount of political talk on here because we try and focus on the work people are already doing without anyone giving them directions to do so. Hence our belief in the power of the bottom-up. But bottom-up, will ultimately have to meet the top-downers in our mutually beneficial middle. So, in case anyone else needs another reason to feel slighted (frustrated, confused, undermined, insert adjective here_____) by the political process these days, I offer you some fuel for your fire, with specific regard to climate change and renewable energy legislation.
Image via:World’s National Museums and Art Blog
A few weeks ago, 285 investors with assets worth $20 trillion issued a report essentially saying, we want governments to address climate change. Please? An actual quote from the 2011 Global Investor Statement on Climate Change says, “Private investment will only flow at the scale and pace necessary if it is supported by clear, credible and long-term policy frameworks that incentivise investments in low-carbon technologies rather than continuing to favour carbon-intensive energy sources.”
Want more? Ok. People who are not worth $20 trillion, but drive the technology that these 1%-ers want to invest in, have basically said that this know-how already exists–we are waiting for your help (hey government, that’s you!) to get it out there. Eleven of the world’s top engineering societies, which includes 1.2 million engineers from four continents signed on to the statement.
Let’s play matchmaker. We have technology. And we have investors for said technology. I don’t really need to tell you what that pesky little step is, that is very successfully and destructively halting the sanctity of that marriage–no, it is not Kim Kardashian–believe it or not!
In this top-emailed story from the Times on Wednesday Paul Krugman does a nice job of telling you that people standing in the way of renewable energy are just blatantly lying at this point. Getting energy from the sun is, in the near future, going to be cheaper than burning coal. All sass aside, while its fun to call them pesky and little, in reality, their impact is huge. 2010 was the largest leap in carbon emissions on record. Global output was 564 million tons more than it was in 2009. Guess who accounts for about half of that? China and America…
So, think about all that other stuff I said on top and rest assured that we have technology and money and a healthily growing renewable energy sector. Over the same period that emissions rose 6%, investments in renewables increased by 30% and soared to $243 billion. Let’s go for trillions, shall we?
Now, back to local action. We appreciate your patience for this beyond-New York interruption.
In anonymous buildings, the control rooms for the nation’s electricity grid are staffed by operators whose split-second decisions keep the power humming.
heat is then transferred to a buffer hot water cylinder, which is connected to the existing hot water cylinder. By pumping hot water from the buffer cylinder into the existing hot water cylinder, instead of from the mains water (which is typically always cold in temperature), less energy is needed to heat up the hot water cylinder, therefore providing recycled, more energy-efficient and cost-effective hot water for the restaurant!
