Green Technology Forum

Rona Fried, PhD, publisher, interviewed Green Technology Forum director Dr. George Elvin for the November 2007 issue of Progressive Investor:

Nanotechnology & Green Building

When you think of nanotechnology do you think of green building? Probably not, but nanotech, the manipulation of matter at the molecular scale, is already providing environmental benefits for buildings.

Although the market for nano-enhanced building materials in the U.S. was under $20 million in 2006, it’s expected to grow to $400 million by 2016. $4 billion a year is being pumped into nanotech R&D worldwide, resulting in a pipeline of materials and products that will transform the way future buildings are made.

Nano has the potential to greatly reduce emissions from buildings - which produce 43% of the world’s CO2 emissions - reduce construction waste, which accounts for 40% of landfill materials, while providing cleaner air and water inside buildings.

In the first wave, nanotech is making its way into insulation, coatings and solar PV. The next wave, currently in the development stage, will bring advances in lighting technology, air and water purification. In about ten years we’ll begin to see changes in structural components like concrete and steel, adhesives, and batteries.

We interviewed George Elvin, who recently published the fascinating report, “Nanotechnology for Green Building,” which identifies 130 startups and established companies offering or developing nanomaterials for green building. Elvin is director of the Green Technology Forum and Associate Professor at Ball State University.

PI: How is nano being used today in green building and who are the leading companies?

George Elvin:

Using nano to improve the performance of existing buildings is one of the great opportunities right now.

Nano insulation is one of the most commercialized nano products. It gets around the problem of insulating existing buildings, which is hard to do with bulky conventional materials like fiberglass. You literally paint or spray the insulation on - it’s invisible and non-toxic. The insulating coatings are so thin and clear that you don’t know they’re there.

With demand for energy efficient buildings rising, insulation is the most cost effective way to reduce carbon emissions from buildings - it lowers a building’s energy consumption by 42% while maintaining a comfortable indoor environment. Nano insulating materials are about 30% more efficient than conventional materials like fiberglass or cellulose.

Industrial Nanotech (INTK.PK), for example, is signing multi-million dollar contracts right and left. They also insulate pipelines - the coating insulates them from the weather, saving huge amounts of energy. In an example of another application, they just signed a big contract with the largest textile company in Turkey to coat some of their machinery. When you insulate machinery, the building’s cooling costs drop dramatically. It’s being applied to aluminum ceiling panels in the new Suvanabhumi International Airport in Bangkok, the world’s largest airport.

The company is developing the first prototype for insulation that actually generates electricity. The thin sheets of insulation - just a few thousands of an inch thick - use the temperature differential that insulation creates to generate electricity. In the future, they will be able to tap the difference in day and night time temperature between the inside and outside of a building, an almost constant source of energy.

Important emerging companies include Industrial Nanotech (Naples, Florida), Nanotec (Brookvale, Australia), Ecology Coatings (ECOC.OB) (Bloomfield Hills, Michigan) and Aspen Aerogels (Northborough, Massachusetts).

It’s interesting to see these young companies coming out of the labs and into the market. They often start when a scientist finds some amazing properties in the lab and builds a product around it, and then finds a business partner to start a company around the product.

Cabot Corp (NYSE: CBT) is a midcap company that makes aerogel insulation. It doubles the insulation and light transmission values of skylights and other daylighting technologies, enabling architects to design buildings with more natural light (reducing energy consumption).

Aerogel, dubbed “frozen smoke,” is the lightest weight solid in the world. The gel is filled with gas rather than liquid and is 95% air. Yet, it can support over 2,000 times its own weight. An 3.5 inch thick aerogel panel provides an R-value of R-28, previously unheard of in a translucent panel.

PI: How is nano used for coatings?

George Elvin:

That’s the other most established sector. Nanocoatings can be used to self-clean surfaces, and in the process they de-pollute - they actually remove air pollutants and dissolve them into relatively benign elements.

De-polluting nanocoatings break down toxins that come in contact with surfaces. When painted onto a road, bridge or building they not only protect the surface and reduce the need for cleaning, they eliminate some of the pollution that cars emit. It’s invisible and nontoxic.

Nanotec’s coatings are on a number of buildings around the world now. A building stays clean much longer, especially the windows, reducing the need for toxic chemical cleansers which emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs). They also have the potential to clean indoor air.

Self-cleaning windows were one of the first architectural applications of nanotech. The coating causes water to sheet off the surface, leaving a clean exterior with minimal spotting or streaking.

Kohler and other plumbing fixture manufacturers are starting to paint anti-microbial coatings on sinks and toilets, which means less maintenance and lower costs. Microban International makes a product called Microban, which is used in 450 products including cleaning supplies, paints, caulking and plumbing fixtures.

In the future, the technology could make pipes so smooth and slippery that they can’t plug up, wear out, and can carry much more water in a smaller pipe.

PI: What’s happening in solar?

George Elvin:

Nanotech solar is starting to offer real competition to conventional silicon-based solar manufacturing. It isn’t as efficient as conventional solar, but is steadily improving. It could replace silicon technology in 5-10 years. The Department of Energy estimates that 50% of the electrical needs of buildings in the U.S. can be met by BIPV systems.

NanoSolar has received $100 million in investments from some of the venture capital powerhouses, along with individual investors like the founders of Google. The company has the potential to transform the solar market with its “roll to roll” process, where thin film, nanotech solar cells are literally printed onto plastic or metal. It makes integrating solar into a building more like printing a newspaper, a major advance from glass plates that are installed on rooftops.

Solar sheets can be made for about a tenth of what current panels cost at a rate of several hundred feet per minute. When full production starts in early 2008, NanoSolar says it will produce 430 MW of solar cells a year. Its SolarPly BIPV panels, made from semiconductor quantum dots and other nanoparticles, will create solar-electric “carpet” to be integrated into commercial roofing membranes.

Spire, Innovalight, Konarka, HelioVolt and Solexant are other important nano solar companies all involved with building integrated PV solar (BIPV). STMicroelectronics (NYSE: STM) is a large cap company that’s developing nanotech applications for new solar cell technologies [editor note: STM was on our SB20 List for several years].

Spire Corp (Nasdaq: SPIR) integrates solar into façade elements like windows and awnings. Its nanostructured materials make fabricating solar cells more efficient and enables solar to be available in various colors, giving architects options for improved aesthetics.

Innovalight is developing silicon ink-based printed solar cells. By processing silicon with liquids, the company believes it can reduce the cost of solar by over 50%. The founder, Alf Bjorseth, is the former CEO of Renewable Energy Corp (REC), one of the world’s largest vertically integrated solar companies. The recent capital raise of $28 million should move Innovalight from development to production.

PI: What’s happening in lighting?

George Elvin:

LED lighting is already a $4 billion market, and organic LEDs (OLED) are coming soon. It’s a potentially huge market with a lot of money going into research. In the long run - at least 10 years off - we’re looking at exciting developments that will change the relationship between lighting and building.

OLEDs are like thin film solar in that they are printed onto substrates. When activated by electricity, they provide brighter, crisper displays on electronic devices and use far less energy than LEDs. TVs will be less than ¼ inch thick and will be able to be rolled up when not in use. OLEDs can be applied to any surface, flat or curved, to turn it into a light source. In the future, light panels will replace light bulbs - walls, floors, ceilings, curtains, cabinets and tables could all become sources of light.

They are beginning to appear in small consumer devices like cellphone screens and are starting to enter the architectural lighting market.

Universal Display Corp (Nasdaq: PANL) is an important company here. Philips (NYSE: PHG) [Editor Note: on our 2007 SB20 List] and GE (NYSE: GE) are picking up the technologies.

PI: Tell me about some of the areas that are further in the future.

George Elvin:

Think about all the applications that can benefit from greater efficiency and you’ll find a role for nanotech. It will make batteries more efficient, create new supercapacitors, lead to advances in thermovoltaics for turning waste heat into electricity, create improved materials to store hydrogen, as well as more efficient hydrocarbon based fuel cells.

Altair Nanotechnologies (Nasdaq: ALTI) is one of the most established companies that’s developing batteries - their NanoSafe product will be used in the new line of electric Phoenix motorcars. AlwaysReady, a subsidiary of mPhase Technologies (XDSL.OB), is bringing its Smart Nanobattery to market.

Nanotechnologies for water and air filtration, which are widely available as consumer products, will increasingly penetrate the market for built-in filtration systems. Donaldson Company (NYSE: DCI) is active in this area. NanoH2O, a development stage company, is creating advanced membrane materials for the desalination and water reuse industries.

NanoDynamics is another interesting company that’s involved in a wide range of nano applications like water purification, coatings, fuel storage and batteries. It’s planning an IPO on the Dubai exchange.

Research is also underway to use nano for fire protection and to enhance structural materials including steel, concrete and wood.

PI: Are you concerned about any safety issues with nanotech?

George Elvin:

Nanoparticles are more readily absorbed into the body than larger particles - unfortunately, little is known about how they accumulate in the body or the environment. Silver nanoparticles, which are proven antibacterial agents and are incorporated into many nanotech paints and coatings, are subject to the first EPA regulations in the field. There are concerns that nanosilver might accumulate in the environment, killing beneficial bacteria and aquatic organisms.

There are also questions about how employees in nano manufacturing plants may be affected. A recent study showed cancer-causing compounds, air pollutants and toxic hydrocarbons associated with carbon nanotube manufacturing. Four major U.S. nanotube producers are developing strategies for environmentally sensitive production.

You’ve been absorbing titanium dioxide nanoparticles for years through your sunscreen - it’s used in many cosmetics and other dermal applications to make white particles disappear into the skin.

DuPont and Environmental Defense are some of the company/ NGO partners working together to develop regulatory policies.

Other factors also stand in the way of widespread adoption. The cost of many nanotech products and processes are still high, and the building industry has always been slow to adopt new technologies. The lack of independent testing and the current reliance on manufacturer claims of architectural and environmental performance is also a problem.

Nanotechnology for green building will reduce waste and toxicity, as well as energy and raw material consumption in the building industry, resulting in cleaner, healthier buildings.

I think those that adopt nanotech for green building will emerge as leaders and be rewarded
accordingly for their services. And for nanotech companies, green building is one their largest markets.

This article is reprinted with permission from Progressive Investor, a monthly newsletter that guides people toward green (cleantech) investments. Learn more: http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/progressiveinvestor.main

“Some of the grandest ideas about how to preserve the environment involve molecular-scale engineering known as nanotechnology. Such visions might inspire more confidence, though, if there were real products available to achieve them.”

Apparently author Barnaby J. Feder, writing in today’s New York Times article, Aiding the Environment, a Nanostep at a Time, hasn’t seen Nanotechnology for Green Building, the 117-page report from Green Technology Forum that identifies 130 startups and established companies offering or developing nanomaterials for green building.

To his credit, and despite his initial cynicism, Federer cites several green building products available today that benefit from nanotechnology, including heat-reducing windows and white LEDs.

But oddly, he says nanotechnology “could enable innovations like increasingly efficient batteries for electric cars and solar energy panels for homes” when in fact all of these innovations are available today as commercial products enhanced by nanotechnology.

He’s right that nano-enhanced products typically come with a higher price tag than their conventional counterparts, but isn’t it time we started looking beyond first costs at how much money and energy new, innovative products can save over their whole life cycle? When we consider economic and environmental life cycle costs, many nano-products have their counterparts beat by more than a nanostep.

Last night I took part in a session on the Indy GreenPrint initiative in Indianapolis. I learned a lot about city government, how far we have to go in energy efficiency and conservation, and how eager many citizens and administrators are to get there.

For example, Tim Method, Environmental Coordinator for Indy’s Department of Public works, explained that half of the city’s energy expenditures are for sewage treatment. And when we get a good rain, which happens about fifty times a year, raw sewage overflows into our creeks and rivers. Fortunately, the city plans to spend almost $2 billion over the next twenty years to fix that problem.

But what can emerging technologies like nanotechnology and biotechnology do to help green our cities? Nanotechnology is advancing water treatment significantly, and one Australian city is even using methane from wastewater to power a treatment plant. Advances in nano-solar cell technology could also enhance programs like Indianapolis Power and Light’s Green Power Option, which allows customers to specify an amount up to 100 percent of their monthly electricity to be generated by environmentally friendly, renewable resources.

I’m looking forward to helping make Indy GreenPrints a reality and introducing environmentally friendly and energy-saving nanotechnologies and biotechnologies where appropriate.

What if we make an all-out, global effort to slow global climate change. How long will it be before we see signs of improvement? Months? Years? Most experts believe it will be decades before our efforts to slow climate change will result in measurable changes at the global scale. After all, the causes of global climate change—increased carbon emissions, deforestation, overpopulation—have been at work for over two centuries, and we’re just now seeing their effects at the global scale.

But how will societies accustomed to quick fixes and instant gratification cope with the time lag between today’s efforts to slow global climate and the visible results of those efforts decades from now? My fear is that, in the absence of quick improvements, some may lose interest and simply stop making the effort.

And let’s face it, our global environmental predicament is going to get worse before it gets better. That’s just the way causes and effects work at the global scale. We have only now begun to turn the ship and begin correcting the habits that have led to the current global condition. Even with the current popularity of all things green in the U.S. and Western Europe, we’re only talking about slowing the rate of increase in carbon emissions, deforestation, overpopulation, and other causes of global climate change. Nobody is talking about reducing them.

Until the effects of today’s efforts roll up into measurable improvements in the global ecosystem, who will have the heart to stay the course? Who will keep pushing to reduce carbon emissions as the effects of global climate change worsen over the next several decades? Politicians? Unfortunately, our political system, in the U.S. at least, seems to reward short-term thinking. Green politics may be a hot topic today, but how many politicians will continue to push for environmental reform when its popularity fades in favor of the next big thing?

Businesses can sometimes be equally short-sighted. We’ve all seen the placards in hotel rooms touting the management’s environmental awareness as they ask us to reuse our dirty towels and bedding. But their conscience too often stops at this one gimmick, which just happens to save them money. Will businesses push to find new ways to reduce global climate change if consumers stop demanding green products and services?

Will scientists search for new insights and evidence to fight global warming if it no longer means big grants and research contracts? Will even the non-governmental organizations often labeled environmentalists move on to other environmental challenges if donors lose interest in the issue of global climate change.

The answer is that it’s up to each one of us to stay focused even as our global environmental predicament seems to worsen over the coming decades. Fortunately, if we continue our efforts to slow global climate change, there will be smaller victories that may sustain us. Reduced rates of extinction, habitat loss, deforestation and soil erosion can all make a dramatic difference at the local scale. These local victories will eventually add up to global effects. And if you need inspiration as we set out on the long road to a greener world, I offer this story:

“One day during his tenure of office as Administrator of Morocco, at the turn of the century, Lyautey, the famous Marshal of France, was riding through a forest when he came to a spot where a storm had uprooted some giant cedars, leaving large empty spaces in the grove. Lyautey called to his side the Director of Forestry who, with other officials, was accompanying him on his tour of inspection. ‘Look here,’ said Lyautey, ‘you will have to plant new cedars here.’ The Director of Forestry smiled. ‘Plant new cedars, sir? But it takes two thousand years to grow one of these trees.’ For a brief minute Lyautey looked surprised. ‘Two thousand years?’ he exclaimed. ‘Two thousand years? Well, then–we must plant them at once.’”

The current green craze is flawed because it perpetuates a false relationship between us and the Earth. In most cases, it still depicts the planet as a collection of resources to be conserved and cherished. Granted, that’s much better than treating it as a collection of resources to be squandered and abused, but it still suggests a slightly disturbing view of the relationship between humanity and the Earth.

It’s disturbing because it sets us apart from nature. To think of ourselves standing apart from the web of life as observers rather than participants is to misunderstand the order inherent in the design of the universe. As the poet Robinson Jeffers put it:

The greatest beauty is organic wholeness,
the wholeness of life and things,
the divine beauty of the universe.
Love that, not man apart from that . . .

Behind the rush of the current green movement is the question:

What is nature to us?

We are of it, not apart, and yet we are its conscience, aware of it and our place in it in a way that no other creature can be. What we are to nature is stewards.

Through the green movement we are undoubtedly moving toward stewardship, learning the wholeness of life and things, and learning to think long term. As a result, almost all of us now recognize that our actions today will affect the world tomorrow, just as we recognize that yesterday’s environmental transgressions are taking their toll today.

But do we really see ourselves as integral to nature’s wholeness, or outside it? Will we use biotechnology and nanotechnology to try to control nature as a collection of resources or will we use them in the service of stewardship? How do we even define the difference?

I’m not against the green movement, just vigilant as to its outcome. Will it dissipate, giving way to the next big thing? Or will it cause a lasting, fundamental change in our relationship with our planet? It’s up to us.

Join Green Technology Forum director George Elvin as he talks to David Rosenberg, founder and CEO of Hycrete, Inc., delivering nano-enabled integral waterproofing that eliminates the need for external membranes and coatings in concrete structures. David explains why Hycrete is one of the first materials to be awarded Cradle to Cradle certification, one of the highest standards for environmental quality available today.

 

 gtf_david_rosenberg [12:21m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Making good on our commitment to a healthier built environment, Green Technology Forum has joined the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). The USGBC is the nation’s foremost coalition of leaders from every sector of the building, working to transform the way buildings and communities are designed, built and operated, enabling an environmentally and socially responsible, healthy, and prosperous environment that improves the quality of life.

At Green Technology Forum we’re proud to join forces with this outstanding organization and help bring the potential of responsible nanotechnology and biotechnology to the forefront of green building. We look forward to sharing developments in these rapidly emerging technologies with members of the green building community, and to sharing green building issues, opportunities, and ideas with our readers.

What sector of the economy uses the most energy, creates the most waste, and produces the most emissions responsible for global climate change? Transportation? Manufacturing?

The answer is buildings, which consume 42% of the nation’s energy, produce 40% of our landfill waste, and create 40% of the emissions responsible for global climate change.

Because buildings are responsible for more energy use, waste, and greenhouse gas emissions than any other sector, you would think they would receive the most attention in our efforts toward energy independence, waste reduction, and fighting global warming. But while biofuels, hybrid cars, and alternative energy make headlines, you won’t hear buildings mentioned in a state of the union address or “An Inconvenient Truth.”

But if buildings are the great unaddressed culprit in energy consumption, waste, and global climate change, they are also the great unaddressed opportunity. Building insulation, for example, is the most cost-effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions on the planet.

According to the United Nations Environment Programme’s report, Buildings and Climate Change, “The high investment costs involved, the lack of information on energy-efficient solutions at all levels, as well as the (perceived or real) lack of availability of solutions to specific conditions, are considered as the major barriers to implementing energy efficiency measures in buildings.”

Because of this lack of information and solutions, the abundance of energy-efficient solutions nanotechnology has to offer the building industry, and the fact that buildings are the primary source of energy consumption, waste and carbon emissions in our country, Green Technology Forum is committing to focus on emerging technologies for the building industry, starting with a forthcoming report on Nanotechnology and Green Building.

I’ll be presenting on this vital topic at the upcoming Nanotech 2007 and Cleantech 2007 conferences, and I welcome your input as we explore this urgent and exciting subject.

As green living and green business gain popularity, we are witnessing a paradigm shift in attitudes toward technology. The subtle but, I believe, widely held perception that technology is fundamentally bad that held sway for the latter part of the 20^th century is now giving way to a belief that technology can help us overcome our past environmental transgressions and lead better lives.

We can trace the origins of negative attitudes toward technology at least as far back as the industrial revolution; early steam locomotives that seem quaint to us, for instance, were called Satan’s chariots. By the 1970s we had done so much damage to the planet with our technologies that virtually an entire generation grew up with a negative view of technology, and technology often played the villain in books and movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey.

The 1970s backlash against technology led many people to seek back-to-the-land alternatives. Some, like Amory Lovins, co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, recognized that technology in itself was not the problem, but rather the shortsighted way in which we were using it. Lovins developed the idea of appropriate technology, but the concept was generally marginalized, often becoming entangled in images of hippie culture, communes and organic gardening.

The Reagan Era seemed to mark the end of many ideals of communal living and appropriate technology, which gave way to SUVs, three dollar coffee, and other material icons of the “Me generation.” But the high life of the 1980s took a toll on the environment; pollution, deforestation, resource depletion, and global climate change increased. Growing evidence of global climate change throughout the 1990s again vilified technology.

Today, we are witnessing a paradigm shift in our attitude toward technology. As green living and green business gain popularity, technology is now seen, not as the villain to be rejected, but as the hero. Solar, wind energy, and alternative fuel technologies are now routinely heralded as the answers to global climate change. Even some original back-to-the-land advocates like Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, now favor nuclear energy.

The paradigm shift from technology as villain to technology as hero has potential benefits and potential risks. Its primary benefit is that green technologies will not be thrown out with the anti-technology bathwater. Positive attitudes toward technology may encourage broader, faster acceptance of environmentally friendly products and processes. As we approach the second decade of the 21^st century, we are learning to evaluate technologies in terms of their environmental impacts and, finally, supporting their development through government funding and venture capital—something that never happened in the 1970s. Consumers are demanding to know the environmental impacts of the products and services they buy, snatching up hybrid vehicles and solar collectors faster than manufacturers can produce them.

But green technology poses concerns as well. Many consumers are looking to technology to help them heal the planet without having to make the sacrifices that the ‘70s back-to-the-land movement demanded. Conservation, while widely recognized as the key to sustainable living, is always a tough sell. We do not see hybrid car owners driving fewer miles, for instance, although they are emitting less carbon dioxide as they drive.

This may prove to be the primary predicament of the green movement: the desire for technology to help us heal the planet and live sustainably without sacrificing our material desires. That is the whole impetus behind sustainable development, recognizing the human desire for more while seeking to ensure that more for us does not mean less for others, whether they be people in today’s developing nations or tomorrow’s children.

The “more stuff, less impact” frame of mind is reflected in emerging technologies like nanotechnology which, for many, includes visions of molecular manufacturing that will one day enable us to produce virtually any object from the bottom up in desktop nanofactories. And while the technology for this may be a long way off, if it is ever achieved, the desire for it betrays a consumer mentality at odds with what the planet, and probably the species, really needs, which is to live well with less.

Maybe rising ocean levels lapping at the front door of the White House would finally get the message across to the President that global climate change is for real. By the end of this century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sea levels could rise between 7 and 23 inches as a result of global warming. A rise of 1 meter, the minimum measurable at Flood Maps, shows most of the White House grounds underwater. Maybe the prospect of paddling over to Capitol Hill will inspire the President to act on global climate change before the White House becomes beachfront property.