Green Technology Forum

Fortune magazine recently surveyed businesspeople to name the 50 most admired companies, from any industry. Meanwhile, the Earthsense Eco-Insights Survey from GreenBiz.com revealed which companies consumers perceive as most environmentally responsible. So which companies made both lists?

Most admired green companies of 2009:
Apple
General Electric
Google
Lowe‘s
Microsoft
Target
Wal-Mart
Walt Disney

We could also call these the largest green companies. But don’t forget, these are the companies consumers perceive as most environmentally responsible, not necessarily the greenest. In fact, Wal-Mart is often cited as one of the least green companies, and corporate giants like GE and Disney have carbon footprints greater than some countries.

If nothing else, cross-referencing these lists offers a lesson in marketing. These may not be the greenest companies, but they’ve done a good job of promoting themselves as green.

The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) confirmed that numbers of both LEED-registered and LEED-certified projects doubled in 2008—from about 10,000 registered projects at the end of 2007 to more than 20,000 by the end of January 2009.

“We’re feeling confident that this truly represents a shift in the market,” said Rachel Gutter, senior manager for the education sector at USGBC.

And the Third Annual Green Building Survey just released by the Constructive Technologies Group shows that the cost premium for constructing a green building over a traditional building is less than 4 percent.

Over 93 percent of the over 900 survey participants agreed it is worth the time and effort to utilize green building concepts. On the other hand, the percentage of those who agree that is it worth obtaining official LEED certification dropped almost 10 percent from the previous year to 66.2 percent.

What to make of the fact that LEED certifications doubled last year but only two thirds of green builders find it worth obtaining? Simple – we’re starting to see green building spreading beyond the early adopters and into the mainstream. And while early adopters are the most likely to enthusiastically endorse the technologies and processes they adopt, mainstream users are typically more apprehensive.

In a free market, this would signal a leveling off of adoption just around the corner. That’s not likely to happen with LEED though because public and private clients will increasingly require it as a benchmark of green building. Forcing builders to go green, while inevitable, could lead to even greater resistance and dissatisfaction with LEED and green building in general.

Ask any young adult under age 30 about asbestos and they’ll probably be hard pressed to expound on the nature of this toxic mineral, perhaps recognizing it as a dangerous substance but not really knowing why or where they’d find it.

Asbestos – though it has never been totally banned in the U.S. – ceased to be included in many products around 1977 when the government issued strict guidelines as to its use. And because of those guidelines, many individuals – particularly the younger generation of homeowners – are pretty much unaware of its toxicity and unconcerned about its presence.

But while most people in this age group will go through life without worry of asbestos and its hazards, young homeowners certainly need to be aware of its presence. Often, young couples or families purchase older, more affordable starter homes in order to get their foot into the real estate market. More often than not, these older homes contain products that include asbestos, often attic insulation and other insulating products but also floor tiles, textured or “popcorn” ceilings, shingles, and various other items that were used in the construction industry for literally decades.

Old or damaged asbestos can present a health hazard to those inside the home, especially when its sharp, thin fibers become airborne and are inhaled. Inhalation of any amount of asbestos, no matter how small, can result in future pulmonary problems, including the development of an aggressive cancer known as mesothelioma.

That’s why home inspections are so important. An experienced home inspector knows what asbestos looks like and where to find it. He/she can alert the homeowner as to potential asbestos dangers and recommend what steps should be taken to remedy them, which might include removal, encapsulation, or simply leaving the asbestos alone but keeping a watchful eye on it for any signs of deterioration in the future.

Once inspections and any abatement is complete, the new homeowner can replace asbestos-containing products with modern variations that are so much safer for everyone living inside the house, including pets. For example, a number of newer and greener options are available to homeowners who desire to replace their insulation with environmentally-friendly products that are both safe and energy efficient. Some of those options include:

• Cellulose – Made from finely shredded newsprint, this popular green insulation contains 85 percent recycled content. US GreenFiber, a manufacturer of eco-friendly building products such as cellulose insulation, reports that cellulose is used in approximately 15 percent of new green building construction, and notes that it reduces heating and air conditioning bills by up to 20 percent.

• Recycled Cotton – Generally made from denim treated with a chemical that makes it heat-, fire-, and mold-resistant, recycled cotton insulation produces no off gases and need not carry any warning labels because it’s totally non-toxic.

• Spray Polyurethane Foams (SPF) – Easy to install and great for families with allergies, SPFs emit no harmful off-gases and produce a very tight seal that allows little room for dust or mold. Some are better than others – look for the ones that do not contain PBDEs (polybrominated dephenyl ethers), which have proven to be toxic to the developing brains of animals and may cause nervous system disorders in humans as well. Experts say SPFs reduce heating bills by up to 35 percent.

For additional information about the long-term health consequences of asbestos exposure, please visit Mesothelioma.com.

An estimated 2,340 lobbyists went to Capitol Hill last year to influence federal policy on climate change. Two of them were there to promote green building.

In fact, of the more than $90 million spent lobbying Congress last year on climate change, only the U.S. Green Building Council’s $250,000 suggests any direct lobbying for green building, according to figures released by the Center for Public Integrity. Their study also shows that the American Institute of Architects spent just over a half million dollars on lobbying Congress last year, but it’s not clear how much of that focused on green building.

Now, for some perspective on those numbers, consider that PG&E, a single utility company, spent over $24 million.

Whose voice do you think is going to ring the loudest in the halls of Congress? And is it any wonder green building related funds in the recent American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the so-called economic stimulus package) were cut by more than $2 billion in the final version passed by Congress?

Buildings are responsible for 40% of our nation’s energy consumption, waste and carbon emissions. So if we’re going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, effectively fight climate change, and build a sustainable economy, green building is going to have to lead the way. But will we have to out-shout 2,340 lobbyists to do it?

A compass is a tool, a technology, for helping us find our way in the world. Few people carry them today, opting instead for more advanced global positioning systems because they better help us find our way. But what else are we looking for in life besides the next Chinese restaurant or hotel? What are we really searching for, and (how) can technology help us find it?

According to Carl Jung, the father of analytical psychology, the purpose of life is not happiness but meaning. But how do we find meaning, and what tools can help us in our search? Many of us find meaning in nature, the arts or spirituality. Some, like the Amish, reject many technologies as obstructions to their search for meaning. Others, like author and inventor Ray Kurzweil, believe technology can help them find meaning in their lives. Some believe rejecting technology will itself bring meaning. Others, equally mistaken, worship technology for its own sake.

What role can technology play in our search for meaning, and what role should it play? The vast majority of technologies were never intended to aid us in our search for meaning. Very few were developed with the aim of improving our genuine happiness. Most technologies are intended to make our lives easier. If we imagine a scale running from “meaning” at the high end through “happiness” in the middle down to “convenience”, most would fall at this lower end.

Even more important than the intentions behind our technological achievements, however, are their effects. Technological progress as a whole has undoubtedly made our lives more convenient, but has it made us happier? Antibiotics save thousands of lives every year. Automobile accidents claim even more.

Has technology helped us in our quest for meaning? Some, like Wendell Berry, argue it has not. We are warmed by power plants that pollute the air, entertained by television that pollutes the mind. “. . . Even such nominally altruistic sciences as medicine and plant-breeding,” he writes, “have now become so deeply interpenetrated with economics and politics that their motives are at best mixed with, and at worst replaced by, the motives of corporations and governments.”

Like Berry, author Bill McKibben questions the value of engineering life. “We will live, eventually,” he fears, “in a shopping mall where every feature is designed for our delectation.” On balance, he and Berry argue, we can find much more meaning in our lives by silencing the din of machines and listening to the land and to each other more intently.

And yet, asking “does this technology help me find meaning in my life?” seems to be setting the bar awfully high. Applying ecological design principles to new technologies and products, however, gives us some reasonable objective criteria for evaluating them. Is it harmful to our health? How will it impact future generations? What effect did its raw material harvest have on habitats or human conditions? Answering these questions may not lead us to the moral heights of “does this technology help me find meaning in my life?”, but it may just take us as high as practically possible in our world of deadlines and deals, budgets and bottom lines.

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.’”

As inspectors sift through the debris of the Minneapolis Interstate 35 bridge collapse, I can’t help but think how nanotechnology could have prevented the tragedy. If a network of nanosensors or microsensors like the ones currently in place on the Golden Gate Bridge had been in place on the Minneapolis bridge, they might have warned of impending failure. Microsensors in place on the Golden Gate Bridge give a real-time, comprehensive picture of the bridge’s performance. They can measure stresses at any point along the structure along with their potential impact on the rest of the bridge.

Nanosensors and microsensors combine low manufacturing costs, compact size, low weight and power consumption, as well as increasing intelligence and multi-functionality. Their market is predicted to grow from $36 billion to $52 billion in 2009. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it grow even faster as engineers look for new ways to prevent disasters like the Minneapolis bridge collapse.