Building a sustainable future

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Building a sustainable future

By Norman Foster

(CNN) -- Two trends will affect global practice over the next two decades: the need to pursue sustainable patterns of development; and the opportunities presented by developing economies.

The need to address man's impact on the environment has never been more urgent. Scientists predict that the Earth will warm by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius by 2100 -- more than temperatures are thought to have changed since the dawn of humanity.

It is now widely accepted that this is largely due to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases -- mostly significantly CO2.

In the developed world, buildings consume half the energy we generate and are responsible for half of CO2 emissions, the remainder being divided between transport and industry.

That is alarming enough. But what will happen as the developing world catches up?

China predicts a doubling of GDP in 2010 compared with 2000, and Kazakhstan, one of the fastest-growing economies, had an astonishing 9.5 per cent growth in 2002.

In China, the building boom is unprecedented, fast and furious. Cities such as Beijing and Shanghai change virtually by the day, with sobering environmental implications.

To avoid global environmental catastrophe, every country has to adopt sustainable development strategies.

Sustainability requires us to think holistically: the location and function of a building; its flexibility and life-span; its orientation, its form and structure; its heating and ventilation systems, and the materials used, all impact upon the amount of energy used to build, run and maintain it.

Virtually every new building can be designed to run on a fraction of current energy levels. However, that is only part of the story. There are two further crucial issues: population growth and the shift towards living in cities.

The world's population stands at 6.4 billion; in 10 years it is expected to reach 7.5 billion. By 2015 there will be 23 "megacities" with populations over 10 million. Nineteen of them will be in developing countries, where up to half the population will be urbanized.

Cities that sprawl are far less energy efficient than densely planned communities. Car travel is a crucial factor. Imagine somebody driving 20 kilometers to work each day. His or her housing will consume 720 liters of oil per annum, the workplace 285 liters, and transport 900 liters. This tells us that even if the buildings were zero energy and carbon free, we would still have problems.

Alarmingly, in most countries car usage is still increasing. To reduce car travel we have to encourage compact cities and high-density new development.

Critics argue that higher densities lead to "poorer" environments. But that does not follow. Monaco and Macao, the world's densest urban communities, are at opposite ends of the economic spectrum.

In London some of the most densely populated areas offer the most desirable lifestyle: Kensington and Chelsea have population densities up to three times those of London's poorest boroughs.

Holistic thinking must equally be applied to infrastructure -- transport systems, streets and public spaces -- the "urban glue" that holds cities together. The quality of infrastructure impacts directly on the quality of urban life.

The clean nature of much post-industrial work means workplaces can be combined with housing and localized communities can be sustained when transport connections, businesses, schools and shops are all within walking or cycling distance of home.

Architects have a vital role as advocates of sustainable solutions. But we also need more progressive developers and politicians with courage to set goals and incentives for society to follow.

Some countries have given a lead: Germany has long understood the need to reduce consumption and adopt renewable energy sources, and that is reflected in building codes.

Others, in varying degrees, lag behind. There are no technological barriers to sustainable development, only ones of political will.

If we are to avoid the environmental damage wrought by the unsustainable patterns of the past, then the established and emerging economies must act in unison and with urgency before it is too late.

-- Lord Foster is principal of Norman Foster & Partners, London. His works include the Millennium Bridge in London, the glass dome for the Reichstag redevelopment in Berlin and the Grand Viaduc du Millau in the south of France

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Remember.. nuclear power doesn't contribute to global warming. And it creates jobs right here in the USA.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Remember.. nuclear power doesn't contribute to global warming. And it creates jobs right here in the USA.

What do we do with the nuclear waste?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Remember.. nuclear power doesn't contribute to global warming. And it creates jobs right here in the USA.

What do we do with the nuclear waste?

Bury it.

Fossil plants just dump their waste into the air. Including radioactive waste. More radioactivity is released into the environment by fossil plants than nuclear plants.

Edit: Fission is not a permanent solution either. I believe fusion is. But that's radioactive too.

Edited February 6, 2007 by LuckyStrike

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Remember.. nuclear power doesn't contribute to global warming. And it creates jobs right here in the USA.

What do we do with the nuclear waste?

Bury it.

Fossil plants just dump their waste into the air. Including radioactive waste. More radioactivity is released into the environment by fossil plants than nuclear plants.

Edit: Fission is not a permanent solution either. I believe fusion is. But that's radioactive too.

Didn't Sweden completely phase out nuclear power (or plan to) because there is no feasible way to dispose of nuclear waste?

Wind, solar, and geothermal energy seem a lot safer - they are renewable and they have minimal impact to the environment.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

At the moment nuclear power is the only viable alternative to fossil fuel fired power stations.

Realistically speaking, oil isn't going anywhere in the near future, but phasing out coal and switching to NPG is certainly achievable.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

At the moment nuclear power is the only viable alternative to fossil fuel fired power stations.

Realistically speaking, oil isn't going anywhere in the near future, but phasing out coal and switching to NPG is certainly achievable.

FEATURE: A most viable alternative energy solution - solar power

LONDON (November 10, 05) - With the escalating global energy crisis, it no doubt comes as no surprise that alternative energy sources are receiving ever increasing attention.

Alternative sources take a number of forms, one of the most viable of which appears to be solar power.

.....

"Installing solar energy on your roof is one of the most meaningful steps an individual can take to reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy and help declare energy independence," EnergyBiz Insider cites Rhone Resch, Solar Energy Industries Association President, as stating. “With the new energy law, solar comes with a more affordable price tag, and more consumers will take a step towards energy independence by choosing solar power."

....

Currently, 742 megawatts of solar cells are produced annually worldwide. Germany has 500 megawatts of solar energy already installed. That market, along with Japan's and the US, accounts for 75% of the world's solar PV market.

Globally, continues Silverstein, the market value tied to solar power is pegged at a phenomenal $4 billion. This begs the question: ‘Why then the hesitations?’

http://www.eyeforenergy.com/news.asp?id=444

Edited February 6, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Solar cells are still not all that efficient - especially if you live somewhere where the sun doesn't shine all that much... Like most of western Europe

Edited February 6, 2007 by erekose

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Solar cells are still not all that efficient - especially if you live somewhere where the sun doesn't shine all that much... Like most of western Europe

I used to think that too, but solar rays still penetrate in cloudy skies. Ack...I'm trying to find some info online. Yes, the amount of photovoltaic energy harnessed decreases but the amount harnessed in one day is significant enough to drastically reduce or eliminate any other power source in most cases.

Here's some solar energy facts....

The earth receives more energy from the sun in just one hour than the world uses in a whole year.

Two billion people in the world have no access to electricity. For most of them, solar photovoltaics would be their cheapest electricity source, but they cannot afford it.

1999 World Production of Primary Energy (Quadrillion (10x15) Btu)

Petroleum

149.7

Natural Gas

87.31

Coal

84.90

Hydroelectric

27.10

Nuclear

25.25

Geothermal, solar, wind, wood, waste

2.83

As you can see, the potential of renewable energy has yet to be tapped and that has a lot to do with the Big Oil. Imagine if those numbers represented market shares and what would have happen to Big Oil if they lost 30 percent of their share to renewable energy?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Solar cells are still not all that efficient - especially if you live somewhere where the sun doesn't shine all that much... Like most of western Europe

I used to think that too, but solar rays still penetrate in cloudy skies. Ack...I'm trying to find some info online. Yes, the amount of photovoltaic energy harnessed decreases but the amount harnessed in one day is significant enough to drastically reduce or eliminate any other power source in most cases.

Here's some solar energy facts....

The earth receives more energy from the sun in just one hour than the world uses in a whole year.

Two billion people in the world have no access to electricity. For most of them, solar photovoltaics would be their cheapest electricity source, but they cannot afford it.

1999 World Production of Primary Energy (Quadrillion (10x15) Btu)

Petroleum

149.7

Natural Gas

87.31

Coal

84.90

Hydroelectric

27.10

Nuclear

25.25

Geothermal, solar, wind, wood, waste

2.83

As you can see, the potential of renewable energy has yet to be tapped and that has a lot to do with the Big Oil. Imagine if those numbers represented market shares and what would have happen to Big Oil if they lost 30 percent of their share to renewable energy?

I agree with you the potential has yet to be tapped, but the technology, specifically solar and wind turbines isn't that efficient.

The highest recorded efficiency of a solar cell (the world record) is 19.5%, the average being around 16-17%. The upshot of that is that you need a huge land area for those installations.

[Caladan 19]

C. and I have fantasized about living in the Southwest and having a home heated and cooled by solar power. We think it would be an interesting engineering project.

Being from Canada, of course, this assumes he wouldn't just melt in the desert.

erekose is right, though. Solar cell technology just isn't efficient enough yet. That doesn't mean it couldn't be, but it does mean that the easier transition, given current consumption levels, would be moving from oil to nuclear.

[JayJay 4]

Well, in terms of carbon usage per person, per year...it goes something like this:

An average person's carbon usage per year is around 20 tons. TWENTY tons! That's an average person in the world - taking into account the developing countries and westernized culture, as well as the more earth-friendly peoples in other parts of the globe.

In order to negate what we have been doing (and it needs negating quickly) to the environment, we need to cut the 20 tons down to 2 tons per person within the next twenty-five years. Without that cut, we are to all intents and purposed, probably doomed in the next 80-100 years. Nay-sayers may say "nay, nay, it is not that serious" but thank goodness for A Gore - who puts this problem in perspective nicely I hear (I haven't seen the film yet). I've been yabbering on about this to gentle c ries of "hush, little lady, it'll be okay - it's all an over-reaction" for a couple of years now.

If you're interested I have an entire page devoted to this topic in more detail on my website: http://www.jayjay.zoomshare.com

Altogether I think it's a pretty depressing scenario. My opinion would be to enjoy the world as you see it now, live frugally and be happy with a little less carbon because then, even if we see the destruction of our wonderful habitat within the lives of our children and grand-children, we can at least give them photographs and stories about a time in which there was some Earth left to love. Because pretty soon, it will probably be gone.

Edited to say: in terms of "within the next twenty-five years" I would say a combination of nuclear power and renewable power would be bets, with the focus dumping straight onto nuclear power for the time being. Renewable power has to be honed first (I agree with you all) and then it can take over. But non-renewable fossil fuels really need to be stopped right NOW - I'm talking within the next five years - to avoid the dramatic climate change that WILL happen if they don't get phased out. It may sound dramatic, but come on - the loss of anentire planet to a species that gradually polluted and drained all of it's natural resources is surely a MUCH more dramatic event?! After all, Oil Baron or not, you can't take your riches to the afterlife.

Edited February 6, 2007 by JayJay

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Remember.. nuclear power doesn't contribute to global warming. And it creates jobs right here in the USA.

What do we do with the nuclear waste?

Bury it.

Fossil plants just dump their waste into the air. Including radioactive waste. More radioactivity is released into the environment by fossil plants than nuclear plants.

Edit: Fission is not a permanent solution either. I believe fusion is. But that's radioactive too.

Didn't Sweden completely phase out nuclear power (or plan to) because there is no feasible way to dispose of nuclear waste?

Wind, solar, and geothermal energy seem a lot safer - they are renewable and they have minimal impact to the environment.

We're much bigger than Sweden. We have many places to bury the waste. Plus, Sweden was pressured by environmental groups to shut the nuke plants down. I'm sure it's the same environmental groups whining about global warming. How ironic.

EDIT: I'm all for renewable resources. It creates jobs here too.

Edited February 6, 2007 by LuckyStrike

[one...two...tree 2,762]

C. and I have fantasized about living in the Southwest and having a home heated and cooled by solar power. We think it would be an interesting engineering project.

Being from Canada, of course, this assumes he wouldn't just melt in the desert.

erekose is right, though. Solar cell technology just isn't efficient enough yet. That doesn't mean it couldn't be, but it does mean that the easier transition, given current consumption levels, would be moving from oil to nuclear.

My younger brother has a degree in environmental engineering and works as chemical engineer. It was/is my fantasy that he and I would start a company in our home state, Arizona, selling and installing photovoltaic units for homes, converting them to solar power and taking them 'off the grid'.

No offense to those who think that solar power is still off in the future - the reality is that for about 10 g's, you can convert your home to run solely on solar power and there are companies that manufacture the units. There are even roof tiles that are solar receptors. The industry won't make leaps and bounds in terms of price, technology and availability until enough money is thrown in that direction. The problem is that very little federal money is given towards solar energy research. But again, in spite of little interest on our gov't's part, the technology is available right now to have your house run entirely on solar energy.

Most probably, the first types of units for homes will be set up so that you are still connected to your utility company, but you will have the ability to 'sell' excess electricity that your solar home generates. Any type of reduction of power plants would be a giant step in the right direction.

The economic potential that solar power could provide for this country is promising. If America were to invest in solar, we could become the world's leading manufacturer of such technology. Currently, Japan leads the way.

Edited February 6, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Spray-On Solar-Power Cells Are True Breakthrough

Stefan Lovgren

for National Geographic News

January 14, 2005

Scientists have invented a plastic solar cell that can turn the sun's power into electrical energy, even on a cloudy day.

The plastic material uses nanotechnology and contains the first solar cells able to harness the sun's invisible, infrared rays. The breakthrough has led theorists to predict that plastic solar cells could one day become five times more efficient than current solar cell technology.

Like paint, the composite can be sprayed onto other materials and used as portable electricity. A sweater coated in the material could power a cell phone or other wireless devices. A hydrogen-powered car painted with the film could potentially convert enough energy into electricity to continually recharge the car's battery.

The researchers envision that one day "solar farms" consisting of the plastic material could be rolled across deserts to generate enough clean energy to supply the entire planet's power needs.

"The sun that reaches the Earth's surface delivers 10,000 times more energy than we consume," said Ted Sargent, an electrical and computer engineering professor at the University of Toronto. Sargent is one of the inventors of the new plastic material.

"If we could cover 0.1 percent of the Earth's surface with [very efficient] large-area solar cells," he said, "we could in principle replace all of our energy habits with a source of power which is clean and renewable."

Infrared Power

Plastic solar cells are not new. But existing materials are only able to harness the sun's visible light. While half of the sun's power lies in the visible spectrum, the other half lies in the infrared spectrum.

The new material is the first plastic composite that is able to harness the infrared portion.

"Everything that's warm gives off some heat. Even people and animals give off heat," Sargent said. "So there actually is some power remaining in the infrared [spectrum], even when it appears to us to be dark outside."

The researchers combined specially designed nano particles called quantum dots with a polymer to make the plastic that can detect energy in the infrared.

With further advances, the new plastic "could allow up to 30 percent of the sun's radiant energy to be harnessed, compared to 6 percent in today's best plastic solar cells," said Peter Peumans, a Stanford University electrical engineering professor, who studied the work.

Electrical Sweaters

The new material could make technology truly wireless.

"We have this expectation that we don't have to plug into a phone jack anymore to talk on the phone, but we're resigned to the fact that we have to plug into an electrical outlet to recharge the batteries," Sargent said. "That's only communications wireless, not power wireless."

He said the plastic coating could be woven into a shirt or sweater and used to charge an item like a cell phone.

"A sweater is already absorbing all sorts of light both in the infrared and the visible," said Sargent. "Instead of just turning that into heat, as it currently does, imagine if it were to turn that into electricity."

Other possibilities include energy-saving plastic sheeting that could be unfurled onto a rooftop to supply heating needs, or solar cell window coating that could let in enough infrared light to power home appliances.

Cost-Effectiveness

Ultimately, a large amount of the sun's energy could be harnessed through "solar farms" and used to power all our energy needs, the researchers predict.

"This could potentially displace other sources of electrical production that produce greenhouse gases, such as coal," Sargent said.

In Japan, the world's largest solar-power market, the government expects that 50 percent of residential power supply will come from solar power by 2030, up from a fraction of a percent today.

The biggest hurdle facing solar power is cost-effectiveness.

At a current cost of 25 to 50 cents per kilowatt-hour, solar power is significantly more expensive than conventional electrical power for residences. Average U.S. residential power prices are less than ten cents per kilowatt-hour, according to experts.

But that could change with the new material.

"Flexible, roller-processed solar cells have the potential to turn the sun's power into a clean, green, convenient source of energy," said John Wolfe, a nanotechnology venture capital investor at Lux Capital in New York City.