Rendering Of A New, More Efficient American Airlines Airbus

The airline industry is one of the nation’s biggest consumers of fuel – no surprise there – but new aircraft technology has dramatically improved planes’ fuel efficiency.  Besides drastically cutting carbon emissions, more efficient jetliners have proven critical for airlines’ financial bottom lines, and companies clinging to outdated technology are paying the price, as evidenced by this week’s American Airlines bankruptcy.

Despite the cost of upgrades, a more modern and fuel-efficient fleet can make the difference between an airline staying competitive and losing money.  It’s no coincidence that American Airlines, which declared bankruptcy this week in an effort to restructure and cut costs, ranks as one of the worst US carriers in terms of average fuel efficiency according to a recent Wall Street Journal article.  Perhaps even more important, American has also trailed far behind most other airlines in improving its average fuel efficiency over the last decade.

Older American Airlines Planes Like This MD-80 Are Inefficient, Costly

According to an article in yesterday’s New York Times,

More than a third of [American's] 600 planes are McDonnell Douglas MD-80s, an aging design that burns more fuel than newer models.  “If oil was still at $50 a barrel, we wouldn’t be having this conversation,” said Mike Boyd, an airline consultant. “Their bet was to hold on to their older MD-80s”.  American’s fleet has an average vintage of 15 years, making it one of the oldest and least fuel-efficient among the six major United States carriers.

One Of AA's Next-Generation Boeing 737s

Fortunately, American was already planning a substantial overhaul to its stable of aircraft.  Back in July, Wired reported that American had announced huge deals to purchase a minimum of 460 next-generation, fuel-efficient Boeing and Airbus aircraft.  It’s worth noting that air travel is nowhere near as “green” as, say, riding your bike, but when it comes to the average “mile per gallon per seat” measurement for a person traveling by either plane or by car, planes are often a more efficient option.  For example, the most modern Boeing 737 can transport a passenger as efficiently as a 99-mpg car.

Air travel isn’t likely to lose its popularity anytime soon, but the industry still has a responsibility to be as fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly as possible.  And airlines are finally starting to realize that greener technology is good for business as well as the planet.

Related: Delta Airliners Integrating Wheeltug Hybrid Motor Technology

Wind turbines are one of the most promising sources of large-scale renewable power.  Wind power doesn’t produce any pollutants, and unlike water or fuel resources, wind is literally an endless source of energy.  However, wind farms do require a substantial amount of space, which is why a much more efficient design like the “Wind Lens” could make wind energy cheaper and more practical.

Developed by researchers at Kyushu University’s Research Institute for Applied Mechanics (RIAM), the wind lens design utilizes a curved housing that encircles the blades of a wind turbine.  The ring is comprised of an inlet shroud, diffuser, and brim that work together to create a low-pressure pocket behind the turbine when wind passes around the ring.  The resulting suction can triple the effective wind speed that drives the turbine blades.

The Aerodynamics Behind The Wind Lens (image: Kyushu University RIAM)

Increasing the energy generated from a single turbine has the potential to make wind power even cheaper than nuclear energy, and wind turbines carry none of the risks associated with nuclear power plants.  Their primary drawbacks are interference with wildlife (such as migrating flocks of birds) and noise; fortunately, the Wind Lens design makes turbines quieter as well as more efficient.

But could wind turbines really make a substantial contribution to US energy demand?  Absolutely.  A recent MNN article by Karl Burkart breaks down the numbers in more detail, but the bottom line is this:  if improved turbines like the Wind Lens were installed in just 20% of America’s “high wind potential” areas, they could provide all the power consumed in the US.

Rendering Of An Offshore Application For Wind Lens Turbines (image: Kyushu University RIAM)

Prototypes are already being tested at Kyushu University.  And the developers are already thinking ahead to the possibilities for large-scale implementation, including floating offshore wind farms far out to sea that could take advantage of uninterrupted air currents without competing for space on land.

(via CleanTechnica & MNN)

According to a recent study conducted by Yale and George Mason Universities, most Americans are firmly behind the development and implementation of cleaner energy technologies.  The majority – across the political spectrum – would even support taxing carbon emissions to help reduce industrial pollution.

The Yale Project on Climate Change Communication coordinated the study, which took place during October and November of this year.  Among the feedback from “Climate Change in the American Mind:  Public Support for Climate & Energy Policies in November 2011″ were the following findings:

90 percent of Americans say developing sources of clean energy should be a very high (30%), high (35%), or medium (25%) priority for the president and Congress, including 82 percent of registered Republicans, 91 percent of Independents, and 97 percent of Democrats.

85 percent of Americans (including 76% of registered Republicans, 83% of Independents, and 90% of Democrats) say that protecting the environment either improves economic growth and provides new jobs (54%), or has no effect (31%). Only 15 percent say environmental protection reduces economic growth and costs jobs.

69 percent of Americans oppose federal subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, including 67 percent of registered Republicans, 80 percent of Independents, and 68 percent of Democrats.

Most Americans Would Support Carbon Taxes To Cut Pollution & Offset Personal Income Tax

Not surprisingly, respondents found the idea of additional taxes to be more agreeable when they considered that the revenues could actually offset their personal income taxes by targeting industrial polluters:

60 percent of Americans support a $10 per ton carbon tax if the revenue were used to reduce federal income taxes, even when told this would “slightly increase the cost of many things you buy, including food, clothing, and electricity.” This policy is supported by 48 percent of registered Republicans, 50 percent of Independents, and 74 percent of Democrats.

The bottom line?  Clean energy solutions don’t need to be a financial compromise – they can be healthy for the nation’s economy as well as the environment.  More and more individuals are recognizing this, which will be crucial as American energy policy evolves over the next few years.

You can view the entire study, or download it in PDF format at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies website.

Home improvement can pay for itself, and even put cash back in your pocket – if you’re putting your money in the right places.  Renovations that increase your home’s energy efficiency aren’t just nice for the environment, they can be economical as well.  The folks at One Block Off The Grid offer a great guide to help you sort out which upgrades make the most sense for your home.

The graphic highlights a range of improvements, both big and small, that will cut your utility bills while reducing your home’s environmental footprint.  Each project is marked with four key figures:  average annual savings, projected savings over a 20-year period, the amount of time for the project to pay for itself, and the cost of the renovation.

(click to view the full size image)

The handy illustration points out that in terms of financial investment, many of these home upgrades can offer a better payoff than traditional investments like stocks or CDs.  And depending where you live, incentives like rebates and tax breaks can make the renovation costs substantially cheaper.

These aren’t just long-term projects, either:  upgrades like low-flow showerheads and programmable thermostats can pay for themselves in less than a year, making them a good choice for renters as well as homeowners.  Larger scale renovations on the other hand, like a green roof or solar array, have the potential to save a homeowner tens of thousands of dollars over the years.

(via One Block Off The Grid)

The newest generation of home heating stoves, which burn fuel pellets instead of firewood, can be a great choice for fending off winter’s chilly temperatures.  Pellet stoves are available in a wide range of styles and designs, and they can provide an extremely fuel-efficient source of heat.

Forget about comparing these high-tech models to old-fashioned open fireplaces.  Traditional fireplace designs don’t allow wood to burn very efficiently, causing unnecessary pollution while much of their heat gets wasted up the chimney.  Modern pellet stoves, on the other hand, are 75-90% efficient with particulate emissions up to 5 times lower than even EPA-certified wood stoves.  A cubic foot of pellets also provides up to 5 times more heat output (measured in BTUs) compared to an equal amount of cordwood.

But what about the carbon footprint of all that burning?  Well, any wood you burn that would have otherwise decomposed is essentially a wash, since all the carbon sequestered in wood is emitted as it decomposes anyway.  The carbon in other fuels like petroleum, however, would simply stay put if it wasn’t burned for fuel.

Pellets contain much less moisture than cordwood, which means they burn hotter and they are lighter to transport.  Homeowners can further reduce their embodied energy by using locally produced pellets whenever possible.  As a bonus, bags of pellets are also generally much more convenient to handle than piles of logs.

A Pellet Fuel Stove From Harman Stoves

Pellets can be produced from a variety of sources like sawdust, agricultural waste, and even paper waste; some manufacturers only use source wood that has already been killed by disease or pests.  For example, Colorado-based New Earth Pellets manufactures their fuel from pine trees damaged by the invasive Mountain Pine Beetle.

Pellet stoves aren’t perfect for everyone; they are generally more expensive than traditional stoves, and they often require electricity for their circulating fans.  But they can usually be installed with a simple vent (instead of an expensive chimney), and there are pellet stoves to match any room size or decor.  Homeowners may also qualify for rebates or other incentives to help offset the cost of installation, like Vermont’s $500 credit for switching from oil to pellet stove heating.

You can find more information at The Department of Energy’s EnergySavers website.

(via ModernEnviro)

Mexico City is a sprawling city with nearly 9 million residents, and some of the most densely populated neighborhoods in the world.  So how could developers possibly squeeze a 65-story structure into the middle of the city’s historic district?  Instead of building upwards, a newly proposed design calls for building down into the ground, creating the world’s first “earthscraper”.

BNKR Arquitectura, the architecture firm behind the concept, sees the below-ground structure as a natural solution to the area’s need for more space.  Local laws restrict the removal of existing historic structures, and even if developers could find an empty lot, new buildings in the neighborhood are limited to 8 stories in height.

The designers envision a huge inverted pyramid that could house offices, homes, retail stores, and even special use spaces like museum galleries.  The main city square above, known as the “Zocalo”, would be preserved – its pavement replaced with transparent panels that would allow plenty to natural light into the massive atrium below.

The concept is purely theoretical for now, but some of the design solutions proposed by BNKR architect Esteban Suarez are pretty clever.   For example, a series of  landscaped “earth lobbies” within the structure would help filter the air, fiber optic filaments could transmit natural light into enclosed areas, and groundwater surrounding the structure could be used to drive electricity-generating turbines.  Such a structure could also presumably take full advantage of geothermal heating and cooling; some of a skyscraper’s logistical challenges, like pumping water to the upper floors, could also take advantage of gravity to be much more energy-efficient.
Check out the BNKR Arquitectura website for more images and details about the proposed project.
(All images: BNKR Arquitectura)

EV1 Electric Car On Display At The Smithsonian (image: Jeff Tinsley, Smithsonian Institution)

Bet you didn’t know that an electric car was the nation’s best-selling vehicle back in ’04.  1904, that is.  If you think the late 1990′s were the dawn of this technology, think again – electric vehicles have been around for over a century.  A new display at the Smithsonian Museum of American History, part of their “America On The Move” exhibit, showcases the evolution of electric transportation.

Riker Electric Automobile, c.1900 (image: Smithsonian Institution)

In the early 1900′s a car buyer could choose among automobiles powered by steam, gasoline, and electricity.  Many wealthier customers (especially those living in urban areas) opted for electric cars because they were relatively simple to operate.  But interestingly, by the 1920′s, gasoline had become the most popular choice for an all-too-familiar reason:  electric cars had limited range, and gas stations were much more common than electrical power stations.

EV1 Electric Car On Display At The Smithsonian (image: Jeff Tinsley, Smithsonian Institution)

Fast forward a century to today’s automobile showrooms, and the electric vehicle has made a serious comeback.  Shifting market forces like pollution control measures, in combination with advances in hybrid motors and battery technology, have combined to make electric cars a practical option once again.  And today’s gasoline-free cars aren’t high-priced prototype novelties like the options from just a few years ago – they’re exceptionally efficient vehicles available to the general public.

Columbia Mark LX Electric Car, c.1906 (image: Smithsonian Institution)

Stop by the Smithsonian Museum of American History to check out the exhibit if you’re in Washington, or visit the Smithsonian website for more info.

Automobiles are a major source of pollution (no surprise there).  Cars also play a big role in our reliance on petroleum, which has its own environmental and socio-political baggage.  So reducing your time behind the wheel may be the socially responsible thing to do, but it literally has a more direct payoff too – namely, saving you a stunning amount of money.  Because driving probably costs way more than you realize.

What if someone offered you a duffel bag containing $125,000 in cash, and all you had to do was avoid a lengthly commute in your car every day?  Surprise – that’s exactly what it can cost a family with two commuters over a 10 year span.  Online personal finance guru “Mr. Money Mustache” recently took a look at the real cost of relying on cars for daily commuting, and he backs up his estimate with some pretty compelling figures.

According to his breakdown, an average suburban couple might be looking at numbers like these:

“38 miles of round-trip driving at the IRS’s estimate of total driving cost of $0.51 per mile [means] $19 per day of direct driving and car ownership costs.”

If each person spends more than an hour in the car each day, that equals over a year of time they could have worked extra hours instead and other opportunity costs as well:

“After 10 years, multiplied across two cars since they have different work schedules, this decision would cost them about $125,000 in wealth (if they had for example chosen to put the $19/day into extra payments on their mortgage), and 1.3 working years worth of time.”

Biking To Work Makes Financial And Environmental Sense

While many car owners may be able to drive more cheaply than this hypothetical couple, Mr. ‘Stache estimates that the bare minimum cost for a long commute would still be at least a third of that amount – totaling tens of thousands of dollars over the decade.  It’s also worth remembering that while some costs vary depending on usage, other expenses like car payments and depreciation are a constant reality, whether your ride is cruising the highway or collecting dust in a garage.

The bottom line:  living close to your workplace and taking public transportation will help keep the air clean, but it will also help save you a ton of time and money.

(via ModernEnviro & Mr. Money Mustache)

Urban living requires efficient use of space, but it can be a very environmentally-friendly lifestyle:  city residents generally live in small homes with access to walkable neighborhoods and public transportation.  One common downside is a lack of green space, but architect Stefano Boeri aims to change all that with his “Bosco Verticale” concept.  Italian for “vertical forest”, his project was recently described by the Financial Times as “the most exciting new tower in the world”.

Currently under construction in the Isola neighborhood of central Milan, the inaugural Bosco Verticale project consists of a pair of residential towers.  Rising 110 and 76 meters over the city, the towers will be home to 900 trees (some close to 30 feet tall) plus a range of flowering plants and shrubs.  That amount of greenery is comparable to 10,000 square meters of forest space, or 50,000 sqm of suburban residential property.

According to Boeri, “Bosco Verticale is a project for metropolitan reforestation that contributes to the regeneration of the environment and urban biodiversity without the implication of expanding the city upon the territory. Bosco Verticale is a model of vertical densification of nature within the city.”

Besides offering pleasing aesthetics, the vertical forest concept takes the green skyscraper concept even further by creating a healthier environment for residents.  The density of plantings creates a microclimate that filters dust and particulate pollution, absorbs CO2, and absorbs noise.  Improved shade and temperature regulation will help avoid the “heat island” effect and reduce the energy needed for climate control systems.

Other energy-efficient components are being integrated into the buildings as well:  photovoltaic arrays will provide partial power to the buildings, and much of the irrigation needed to support the plantings will come from reusing processed wastewater.  Visit Stefano Boeri Architecture to learn more.

NASA’s space expertise means it’s virtually unmatched when it comes to creating efficient and sustainable environments for humans to live and work, and the innovative new office facility at their Ames Research Center near San Francisco is a showcase of intelligent and environmentally friendly design.  Designed by William McDonough + Partners, the Sustainability Base draws on the latest in green architecture and (literally) space-age technology.

According to NASA, Associate Center Director Steve Zornetzer was “inspired by architect and sustainability pioneer Bill McDonough… to take the closed-loop thinking that NASA uses in space exploration and apply it to a green building on Earth.”

The 50,000 square foot facility utilizes an “exoskeleton” design that takes full advantage of its natural surroundings and local wind patterns, optimizing its use of daylight and natural ventilation.  It also creates a user-friendly open floorplan for the 220 employees who will work there, and offers excellent stability and earthquake protection.

Energy efficiency is a top priority at Sustainability Base, and the facility is expected to produce all its own power as well as surplus electricity which can be channelled into the local power grid.  Energy production will come from photovoltaic solar panels supplemented by a wind turbine, as well as a natural gas fuel cell that NASA hopes will eventually utilize methane captured from landfill waste.

A few highlights of the Sustainability Base include:

- Use of locally sourced materials like steel to reduce pollution from transportation

- Extensive recycling of waste materials (92% of construction waste was kept out of landfills)

- LEED Platinum certification (pending)

- “Graywater” irrigation system that uses reclaimed waste water

- “Bioswale” landscape features and plantings that filter rainwater runoff before it enters storm drains

- Geothermal ambient cooling system

- Computerized shades that maximize daylight while controlling solar heat gain

- Extensive use of recycled building materials and reclaimed wood flooring

It’s also worth noting that, although construction costs on the $20 million structure were slightly higher thanks to all the added technology, NASA should recover the difference within 10 years – at which point the facility will be a major cost-saver as well as energy-saver.

Construction on the facility is expected to be complete later this year.

(via NASA, LA Times)