Tag Archive: sustainability


Overfishing has depleted fish-stocks the world over. Subsidies and lack of enforcement of sustainability measures drive the fishing industry to deplete the very stocks on which its existence depends, while climate interference and global contamination are leaving oceans so hypoxic (oxygen deprived) they cannot support marine life. At least 405 such ‘dead zones’ have been identified across the globe.

According to a NASA report, hypoxia is so extreme in some areas, that total anoxia (zero oxygen availability) can be found, allowing for no animal life to exist. In the Mississippi River delta, feeding into the Gulf of Mexico, it is thought that agricultural waste is creating a glut of nutrients for phytoplankton, which leaves excess organic matter for bottom-dwelling bacteria to feed on.

View full article »

CafeSentido.com :: In a tucked-away corner of the New Zealand coastline, a couple, both architects, Lance and Nicola Herbst, have designed a self-sustaining “off-the-grid” home that lends flavor and mood to everyday living. Their cedar-clad bungalow is designed to interact with the natural environment and optimize its use of resources, such as energy, water and nutrients.

Great Barrier Island is four and a half hours from Auckland, by boat, and its remote geography necessitates the kind of innovative green building choices visible in the home built by Lance and Nicola Herbst. When the South African-born couple first visited Great Barrier Island, they were taken with the unique beachside structures they encountered — “little timber shacks we had never experienced before—tiny buildings with 20 years’ accretion of stuff”.

They were smitten with the relaxed notion of the vacation bungalows (bachs — after “bachelors”, their traditional inhabitants) they found there, and also saw the scaled back standard requiring off-the-grid pragmatic innovation as a challenge to their design abilities. Achieving high-design innovation and stylistic and material “modesty” were part of the challenge.

View full article »

Feature excerpted from Sustainable Development Update, Issue 5, 2008, by kind permission of Albaeco : Stockholm, Sweden

Fredrik Moberg, Albaeco :: Earlier this year UNEP, UNDP and the World Bank teamed up with World Resources Institute to publish a report focusing on the concept of resilience “for cushioning the impacts of climate change and delivering continuing benefits to the poor”. Recently, the Volvo Environment Prize was given to the “father of resilience theory”, C.S. Holling. But what is this resilience-thing really all about? We thought it was about time to try to sort this concept out once and for all.


Building economic, social, and environmental resilience that cushions the impacts of climate change is becoming increasingly important. Photo by Annette Löf/azote.se: thunderstorm approaching over Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Resilience has become one of the new buzzwords of sustainability. This is not only due to the fact that the father of resilience theory, Canadian ecologist Crawford “Buzz” Holling, recently won the Volvo Environment Prize, it all started much earlier. The concept of resilience was introduced by Holling already back in 1973 as: “a measure of the ability of systems to absorb change… and still persist”. In an ecological context, resilience is generally described as the long-term capacity of an ecosystem to cope with and adapt to change and perturbation, such as storms, fire and pollution. Hence, it is both the capacity of a system to withstand pressures and to rebuild and renew itself if degraded.

– Resilience is the answer to the question: how can things change and persist at the same time, explains Steve Carpenter, Professor of Zoology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Loss of resilience tends to lead to more vulnerable systems, and possible ecosystem shifts to undesired states that provide fewer ecosystem goods (like fish and crops) and services (like flood control and water purification). Clear lakes can suddenly turn into murky, oxygen-depleted pools, grasslands into shrub-deserts, and coral reefs into algae-covered rubble. It is often caused by gradual loss of biodiversity making the ecosystem progressively more susceptible to disturbances like hurricanes or pollution.

Resilience is the capacity of a system to deal with change and continue to develop. It is both about withstanding shocks or disturbances and regaining functions afterwards. In human systems, this is closely linked to the ability to adapt to changing conditions through learning and innovation or even transformation.

International development cooperation
The report, World Resources 2008: Roots of Resilience: Growing the Wealth of the Poor, which we highlighted in SDU 4/08, is a clear sign that resilience thinking is becoming increasingly mainstreamed in the international development community. It is a joint effort produced by the World Resources Institute, UNEP, UNDP and the World Bank, which argues that properly designed ecosystem-based enterprises can create economic, social, and environmental resilience that cushion the impacts of climate change, and deliver continuing benefits to the poor.

– Economic and social progress rests on a healthy environment, from local ecosystems to the biosphere as a whole. Maintaining the resilience of ecosystems is not only a question of saving the environment. It is about securing human development, explains Carl Folke of the Stockholm Resilience Centre.

A perspective – not a measure
In recent times, many resilience scholars have started to put much more emphasis on the social side of the resilience theory and also focused more on the adaptability and renewal of coupled systems of humans and nature – so-called social-ecological systems (SES).

Following this, the resilience concept has developed more into a perspective than a measure, a perspective recently defined to encompass the three aspects: (1) Persistence: the capacity of a system to maintain structure and function when faced with shocks and change (e.g. for a forest to withstand a storm); (2) Adaptability: the collective capacity of people in SES to adapt to changing conditions in order to stay within a desired state (e.g. the ability to safeguard current food production systems under climate change); and (3) Transformability: the capacity of people in SES to learn, innovate and transform in periods of crisis in order to create a new system when ecological, social or economic conditions make the existing system untenable (e.g. turning the current financial crisis into an opportunity to transform the global economy).

View full article »

As the “perfect storm” gathers from inchoate, deceptively non-threatening winds, we can look ahead, backward and into the mirror and ask how crisis comes, or why, if it is inevitable, if we might just fall right out of it, as we fell into it. But the answer is simple: human crisis comes from excess, from inordinate ambition, from misplaced aggression, from over-exploitation of resources, each of which generates real and problematic tension across the landscape of human experience.

The Dust Bowl of the 1930s resulted from a misguided atomized over-exploitation of arable land. Ancient Sumerian civilization collapsed entirely because excesses of irrigation coupled with poor planning raised soil salinity to levels toxic to agriculture. At the end of the 20th century, global industrial activity had come to far outstrip the available resources feeding into it, and our global economy had come to depend on increasing demand and increasing output to feed unsustainable rates of increasing growth, across the planet.

Something had to give. The mathematics of the whole big picture had come to rest on the assumption that already over-stressed basic resources could expand along with economic expansion. They could not. We may now be seeing just the beginning of this realignment of economic expectations, forced by circumstance.

As major resource scarcity spreads, with China losing ever more arable land to encroaching northwestern deserts and road building in the industrial east, as China’s exploding demand for petroleum, steel, copper, water, meat and grains, put pressure on world markets and pushes the cost of basic goods like food staples ever higher across the world, as the unsustainable demand for fuel moves the US corn belt to shift to cropping for ethanol —as much as 40% of world corn exports are from Iowa, which now devotes 18% of harvest to bio-ethanol—, we are experiencing the natural results of an economy that hinges on hyper-exploitation of resources. The correction, when fully upon us, may yet be far more severe than the 2008 credit-freeze crisis.

Hyper-exploitation is a doctrine: it underpins public policy, government spending, security policy and the philosophical arguments for and against deregulation and the trickle-down theory of economic growth as related to tax policy. It requires that we believe in unstated, unproven modes of natural replenishment; it is a proposition that all things can be tapped, moved, transformed and spent, infinitely, because somehow, the market will set all the right limits and excesses will never be so severe as to ignore the laws of nature.

It is, for this reason, dangerous, because it not only is a doctrine that requires us to use more of the vital resources we require than can be replaced at sustainable levels, it moves us deeper into the vice of living on borrowed time. The result is that we must periodically learn the lesson that borrowed time cannot be financed, that we must pay the full price when it comes due, and our unprecedented resource depletion will leave us, quite simply, without the level of supply required to sustain our standard of living.

Already, wealthy governments are moving to take over cropland in poor countries in order to shore up their own food supplies, as the food security crisis spreads throughout the world, affecting even the wealthiest economies. The fear is that this over-consumption now extending to land use in poor foreign states may lead to a wave of mass starvation throughout the developing world, sparking conflicts and threatening the integrity of the international system as such.

According to the Guardian’s Julian Borger:

“In the context of arable land sales, this is unprecedented,” Atkin said. “We’re used to seeing 100,000-hectare sales. This is more than 10 times as much.”

At a food security summit in Rome, in June, there was agreement to channel more investment and development aid to African farmers to help them respond to higher prices by producing more. But governments and corporations in some cash-rich but land-poor states, mostly in the Middle East, have opted not to wait for world markets to respond and are trying to guarantee their own long-term access to food by buying up land in poorer countries.

India and Bangladesh are constantly disputing river water resources that both countries depend on for basic sustenance for tens of millions of people. Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt are gripped by a struggle over control of the Nile’s water, with the river running dry at the Nile delta on the Mediterranean during some seasons. The Colorado River in the US has failed to reach the sea and is seeing its flow through the Grand Canyon significantly reduced, as states in the Colorado River Basin dispute claims on the river’s water.

Hyper-exploitation even extends to the use of natural resources like water as dumping grounds. The level of toxic chemicals and plastic polymer byproducts now found in ocean water the world over has reached alarming levels, threatening vast ecosystems and undermining the health of human beings and wildlife in most of the world. Drinking water across the US was found to be contaminated by high levels of pharmaceuticals earlier this year, raising the specter of as yet unknown potential harm to public health, over the long term.

High levels of contaminant emissions or toxic dumping are an abusive use of natural resources we often overlook —like air, land, water and forest cover— in our quest for combustible fuels, industrial-scale production and economies of scale we hope will reduce costs, even if they also increase the risk to our long-term economic and physical health and wellbeing. We are now facing a structural economic crisis, which requires us to reformulate and rebuild our economic model, at the most basic levels, a process which will be more or less painful, depending on how seriously we commit to getting it done and done right.

FEATURE FROM SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT UPDATE, ISSUE 3, VOLUME 8, 2008

Fredrik Moberg/Miriam Huitric, Albaeco :: Food prices are skyrocketing. Initially, many put the blame on the rising demand of biofuels in the transport sector, but bio-ethanol is far from the only thing driving up food prices. New diets, soaring oil prices and climate change are all in the complex soup of explanations behind the recent development putting food beyond the reach of the planet’s poor.


The price of wheat has doubled in less than a year.
Photo: Wen-Yan King: medapt.org, azote.se

More than 800 million people are still undernourished in the world today. The Haitian riots over soaring food prices in April this year were a startling reminder of the inequalities between developed and developing countries – with the latter feeling the impact of the growing global food crisis in ways that go beyond the imagination of most people living in developed countries.

The price of wheat has doubled in less than a year and prices for milk and meat have more than doubled in some countries. International nominal prices of all major food commodities are at the highest levels in nearly 50 years. While this crisis is real – so much so that the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) recently held a High-Level Conference on World Food Security: the Challenges of Climate Change and Bioenergy – its causes are not so clear.

Initially, many put the blame on bio-ethanol and claimed that food prices were surging because we have chosen to feed our cars instead of feeding human beings (see SDU Issue 4/2007). Lately, however, the discussions have broadened to also include a whole set of other explanations. A recent post on the ecogeek weblog was right to the point: “All-in-all, it’s not a good time to be burning what can otherwise be eaten. But there is no good reason to say that biofuels are the one and only problem. SUV’s are certainly limiting the future of the world, but not by burning hungry people’s food.”

Six major factors behind the rising food prices

  • Soaring fossil-fuel prices (needed to produce fertilizers, pesticides and for transportation)
  • Emerging economies and Westernisation of diets (rich people eat more and buy more meat and milk that increase demand for grains to feed livestock)
  • Population growth (food demand growing faster than supply)
  • Climate change (drought, more frequent flooding etc already beginning to have significant impact on agricultural production)
  • Use of crops for fuel (shifting production from food to biofuels)
  • Market speculation (investors from traditional markets now focus on financial products tied to agriculture commodities as food prices increase)

Even more recently, however, the British daily “The Guardian” claimed to have obtained a confidential World Bank report that claims that biofuels are the main cause and have forced global food prices up by 75% – far more than previously estimated (at the other extreme, the US Government says it is less than 3%).

Key causes of the soaring food prices
Until recently global production of food matched demand. In fact, for a rather long period of time there has been an excess of production in many parts of the world. These surpluses have often been “dumped” at low prices in developing countries with disastrous impacts on national farmers who could not compete with the low prices offered. This was until recently. Demand now seems to have passed the tipping point where it exceeds production, according to several experts.

Another key aspect to consider when trying to understand the food price crisis is drought, which is predicted to increase in frequency and severity as the climate changes. In 2007, prices soared to a large extent due to failed crops in the drought stricken fields of Australia’s food bowl that are central to the worldwide price of grains.

View full article »

CafeSentido.com :: The former vice president of the United States, Al Gore, yesterday announced an ambitious goal, which he says the nation can meet, of transitioning its entire domestic energy production to clean resources by 2018. The speech marks a major moment in the process of transition to the green technology boom, which will be the next step in the ongoing economic development of the United States and the world. Gore, however, warned that failing to meet the challenge to date means “the United States of America as we know it is at risk”.

The United States currently consumes roughly one-quarter of all the world’s petroleum, while representing just 4.6% of the world’s population. Experts calculate that global energy production is at or near its peak, and total demand is fast expanding beyond production capacity. In a globalized economy, with major developing nations like China and India expanding GDP by between 7% and 10% per year, this imbalance is untenable. So crude oil prices are shooting up, and the US is increasingly at risk for economic hardship, perhaps already in motion, as a result of coming market corrections.

Mr. Gore opened his address [full text] with a caution to those who fail to perceive the complexity of a new kind of security risk:

There are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon dispelling illusions and awakening to the challenge of a present danger. In such moments, we are called upon to move quickly and boldly to shake off complacency, throw aside old habits and rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of big changes. Those who, for whatever reason, refuse to do their part must either be persuaded to join the effort or asked to step aside. This is such a moment.

The fact is, moods are changing, and the political environment has evolved dramatically in the last two years. Gore cites this trend as cause for hope in this moment of economic and environmental peril, and the best reason for calling for this grand infrastructure readjustment. Skeptics who have long cited the “prohibitive cost” of making the adjustment to clean energy technologies are out-argued by the soaring cost of carbon-based fuels: their historic efficiency is no longer guaranteed, and the economy as a whole is being magnetized to new technological opportunities to reduce energy overhead.

Noting the same problem of oil “addiction” Pres. Bush cited in his 2006 State of the Union address, Mr. Gore urged Americans to think with a can-do attitude about how to make fundamental changes to the core energy metabolism of our economy, specifically:

our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges – the economic, environmental and national security crises. We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that’s got to change.

How does an entire nation come together to undertake such a massive energy overhaul —priced at between $2 trillion and $5 trillion, according to a range of analysts from competing disciplines—, if not by using the levers of democratic political pressures to steer the entire economic output of the nation in a new direction? Moving public awareness can be as unwieldy as steering the ship of state, and in an economy that represents nearly one-third of the entire global economic output, the task is daunting.

View full article »

Former US vice-president Al Gore is calling on the nation to marshal its resources and divorce itself from the combustible fuels economy. Gore says the US can produce all its energy requirements from renewable resources within 10 years, if concerted action is taken. The bold initiative is designed to drive debate on the topic and move discussions about how to deal with high fuel prices toward the new opportunity they provide for funding renewable infrastructure development.

According to the Associated Press:

Rising fuel costs, climate change and the national security threats posed by U.S. dependence on foreign oil are conspiring to create “a new political environment” that Gore said will sustain bold and expensive steps to wean the nation off fossil fuels.

When Pres. Bush announced he would lift the executive ban on offshore oil drilling and urged Congress to do the same, critics retorted that the science shows the potential energy output is too far off and too small to affect prices, but that new drilling would “enable” the nation’s “addiction” to carbon-based fuels. Pres. Bush himself used the word addiction in a State of the Union address, to describe what could be a crippling reliance on petroleum-based fuels.

Gore’s proposed initiative has been compared to Pres. John F. Kennedy’s promise that the United States could land a man on the moon within the decade of the 1960s. Ecological economist Lester Brown, of the Earth Policy Institute, has long called for the US to treat the climate crisis as a major threat and to begin to overhaul its energy economy “at wartime speed”, referring specifically to how Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt moved the industrial economy of the US to war production to fight and win World War II.

Gore has not shied away from the issue of cost, but points out that the cost is no longer higher than simply filling in gaps in current demand with new output from high-contamination fuel-sources like coal:

The Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan group that he chairs, estimates the cost of transforming the nation to so-called clean electricity sources at $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion over 30 years in public and private money. But he says it would cost about as much to build ozone-killing coal plants to satisfy current demand.

Gore says his goal is to drive public opinion toward an alternative fuels revolution, noting how this process seems to have begun already as a response to soaring gasoline prices. The fuel-source issue has come to dominate every aspect of current economic analysis, as transport costs are now being blamed for a rise in inflation across the US and for 9-figure losses for at least two major airlines.

No longer a politician, but keenly involved in the political sphere, Gore is now devoted to the complex project of informing and changing attitudes, hoping to “enlarge the political space” where government and the private sector can “deal with the climate challenge.” His words may help spur bolder action by politicians, which would help business make the investment commitments necessary to revolutionize their own infrastructure and/or industrial output.

Last year, consumption of renewable energy actually declined slightly in the US, the fall attributed largely to lower levels of precipitation affecting hydrological energy output. But solar and wind energy are now rapidly expanding their production capacity, and Texas oil man T. Boone Pickens’ personal wind-energy initiative —aimed at building a continent-wide wind-energy corridor to produce over 20% of power-generation needs— is the latest major sign of progress.

New solar technologies that make solar-power generation perhaps 10 times more efficient mean prices for producing renewable energy are coming down dramatically, just as prices for conventional fuel sources are skyrocketing. While both candidates’ energy plans include coal as a viable resource for expanding production, the major progress being made in renewable fuel sources may make such expansion unnecessary before new plants come online.

Critics have often said the renewable resources market is too costly to be implemented in a way that benefits most consumers economically, but this is no longer the case, and what Mr. Gore is pushing for is precisely the kind of national innovation initiative that brings the most efficient clean energy technologies within the economic range of all consumers. Sustaining these clean technologies would be far less costly than cleaning up after high-contamination combustibles, so the long-term gains, added to the economic boom from infrastructure development, will be part of a needed green technology boom

EXCERPT FROM PLAN B 3.0, CH. 2: “DETERIORATING OIL & FOOD SECURITY”

Lester R. Brown, EPI :: During the concluding half of the last century, the world was making steady progress in reducing hunger, but during the transition into the new century, the tide began to turn. In February 2007, James Morris, head of the U.N. World Food Programme (WFP), announced that 18,000 children are now dying each day from hunger and related causes. For perspective, this loss of young lives in one day is almost five times U.S. combat deaths in Iraq through four years of fighting. Although these huge numbers of dying children may be an abstraction, each represents a young life ended far too soon. (75)

There are many ways of measuring hunger. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) calculates the number of hungry people based on food intake. FAO data say the long-term trend in reducing hunger is encouraging, but not the recent trend. The number of people in developing countries who are hungry and malnourished, which declined from 960 million in 1970 to 800 million in 1996, has turned upward, reaching 830 million in 2003. (76)

Projections by Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer of the University of Minnesota four years ago showed the number of hungry and malnourished people decreasing to 625 million by 2025. But an update of these projections in early 2007 that took into account the effect of the massive diversion of grain to ethanol distilleries on world food prices shows the number of hungry people climbing instead of decreasing—to 1.2 billion by 2025. (77)

One of the manifestations of a sharp rise in grain prices is a correspondingly sharp drop in food assistance. Since the budgets of food aid agencies are set a year or more ahead, a rise in food prices shrinks food assistance. For example, the United States, by far the largest food aid donor, saw the price of a ton of food aid in 2007 climb to $611, up from $363 per ton in 2004. In the absence of supplemental appropriations, food aid will drop by 40 percent. Key recipients, like Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and the Sudan, will be hit hard. (78)

Working together, the FAO and WFP each year release an assessment of crop and food conditions that lists the countries in dire need of food assistance. In May 2007, a total of 33 countries with a combined population of 763 million were on this list. Of these, 17 were in need of external food assistance because of recent civil strife and conflict. Many of these countries are on the top 20 list of failing states, including Afghanistan, Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. The bottom line is that political insecurity and food insecurity often go hand-in-hand. (79)

The countries on WFP’s food emergency lists are mostly societies trapped between lowered mortality and continuing high-levels of fertility. In this situation, which leads to state failure if permitted to continue indefinitely, agricultural development is often interrupted by a decline in personal security that makes it difficult to maintain technical support for farmers and to sustain timely flows of seed and fertilizer.

With failing states and declining personal security, it is difficult even to operate food relief programs. WFP head James Morris, discussing the food relief operation in early 2007 in Sudan’s Darfur region, where violence and insecurity are rampant, says, “Our convoys are attacked almost daily. We had a driver killed there at the end of last year. Our convoys coming through Chad from Libya are always at risk.” In failed and failing states, food relief, however sorely needed, is not always assured. And sometimes even though people are starving, it is simply not possible to reach them with food. (80)

There are many threats to future food security, including falling water tables and rising temperatures, but the most immediate threat may be the diversion of an ever-larger share of the U.S. grain harvest into the production of fuel for cars. Only the U.S. government can intervene to restrict this diversion and avoid life-threatening rises in world grain prices.

ENDNOTES:

75. Edith M. Lederer, “U.N.: Hunger Kills 18,000 Kids Each Day,” Associated Press, 17 February 2007; Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, icasualties.org/oif, updated 31 July 2007.

76. Loganaden Naiken, “Keynote Paper: FAO Methodology for Estimating the Prevalence of Undernourishment,” at www.fao.org/docrep/ 005/y4249e/y4249e06.htm, viewed 1 August 2007; FAO, op. cit. note 41.

77. C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer, “How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor,” Foreign Affairs, May/June 2007.

78. Missy Ryan, “Commodity Boom Eats into Aid for World’s Hungry,” Reuters, 5 September 2007.

79. FAO, Crop Prospects and Food Situation, no. 3, May 2007; Fund for Peace and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “The Failed States Index 2007,” Foreign Policy, July/August 2007; U.N. Population Division, World Population Prospects, op. cit. note 2.

80. Lederer, op. cit. note 75.

Excerpt from Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization
(New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Earth Policy Institute, 2008)
Republished here by permission of the Earth Policy Institute

Special transparent dyes coating glass or plastic panes concentrate the Sun’s rays, guiding them to solar-voltaic cells lining the edges, allowing a window to act as a solar panel with 10 times the electricity generation capacity of solar cells, by current standards. The ‘organic solar concentrator’ (OSC) system also reduces cost, by reducing the surface area that needs to be coated by solar-voltaic cells and by eliminating the need for large concentrating mirrors and sun-tracking mechanisms.

According to the journal Science, where the findings were published:

Light is absorbed by the coating and reemitted into waveguide modes for collection by the solar cells. We report single- and tandem-waveguide organic solar concentrators with quantum efficiencies exceeding 50% and projected power conversion efficiencies as high as 6.8%. The exploitation of near-field energy transfer, solid-state solvation, and phosphorescence enables 10-fold increases in the power obtained from photovoltaic cells, without the need for solar tracking.

The Economist is using the term ‘luminescent solar concentrator’, and notes that the work reported by Michael Currie and Jonathan Mapel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is being researched elsewhere as well, and is related to the standard functioning of fiber optic technologies, which concentrate light and contain it within a conductive glass or plastic fiber. The OSC system conducts light toward the edges of the glass or plastic pane, trapping photons within the pane, causing it to seek out the high-efficiency solar-voltaic cells at the panel’s edge.

There are technical complications with perfecting the OSC system for harvesting solar energy. The dyes capture and concentrate the incoming sunlight, but an excess of dye molecules may prevent a quantity of light from reaching the circumferential solar cells, either by re-absorbing the light or by allowing heat to accumulate and losing the energy through that concentration of heat on the dyed surface.

The EE Times reports that the “edge-mounted” solar cells could receive light concentrated as much as 40 times. With the extreme heightening of efficiency, and the attendant reduction of costs, related to the new panels’ lack of need for mirrors or solar tracking mechanisms, the MIT advance could revolutionize the role of solar power in the global energy economy.

The dye-based solar concentrators could be on the commercial market within three years, distributed widely and helping homeowners and businesses establish productive capacity in linking up with the spreading renewables grid. Consumers with solar and wind-generation capacity can earn money on energy fed back into the local electricity grid.

The solar concentrating dye-coating can also be applied to exiting solar cells, heightening their light-capturing capability by as much as 30%, according to the MIT team. Marc Baldo, an MIT engineer, says “We think that ultimately this approach will allow us to nearly double the performance of existing solar cells for minimal added cost.”

While obstacles to containing and harvesting the full amount of energy captured by the dyes are an issue, Baldo’s team went far beyond previous attempts at increasing the efficiency of solar cells with the dye-retransmit method, by coating only the surface of a glass pane with the dyes, mimicking techniques used to improve the efficiency of lasers, which also contain and bounce light to intensify the retransmission of light at the other end of the contained space.

The green technology transition is gaining momentum. Japanese auto manufacturer Toyota has announced it will add solar panels to some of its fleet of hybrid vehicles. The “high-end” third-generation Prius models will sport Kyocera-produced solar panels on the roof, aimed at assisting with powering the air-conditioning and other peripheral operations, freeing up battery energy to give the hybrid engines more non-combustion mileage.

The move is being reported as a “symbolic gesture”, as solar energy is considered a complementary solution for powering automobiles, not a genuine fuel source, in part because the energy is hard to store. But solar panels have been used to power cars in experimental engineering projects, and have long competed in a race in Australia. But with more advanced battery-storage systems, the storage capacity for solar energy increases dramatically, and the new gas-battery-solar Prius hybrid could herald a new direction in automotive fueling: composite sourcing. 

The composite fuel sourcing model is attractive for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the flexibility it affords drivers. Viewing fuel as a resource to produce energy, and electricity as the energy needed to power the automobile engine, could mean a revolution in the variety and flexibility of available modes of fuel sourcing for personal automobiles.

Merging gas-electric hybrid automobiles with solar power and other electricity-gathering mechanisms should help speed the transition away from combustible hydro-carbon fuels, a mounting economic and environmental imperative. That solar power cannot be stored in sufficient amounts to facilitate an automobile journey is no longer a viable argument against the technology.

And, proposals such as that of US presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), offering $300 million to anyone who can invent the new technology that makes car batteries significantly more powerful (a vital step in reducing reliance on petroleum) could spark new directions in automotive technology innovation. The manufacturers who most ably judge these new technologies and build the composite-fuel or even zero-combustion automotive vehicles of the future will become market leaders across the globe.

Powered by WordPress | Theme: Motion by 85ideas.