Research at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory, funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy, has resulted in a “potentially game-changing solar cell” that removes CO₂ from the air and converts it directly into hydrocarbon fuel. “The new solar cell is not photovoltaic — it’s photosynthetic,’ says Amin Salehi-Khojin, assistant professor of mechanical and industrial engineering at UIC and senior author on the study.” The solar cell uses sunlight and metal compound called tungsten diselenide as a catalyst to power a photosynthesis-like process, but instead of producing sugars, like plants do for energy, these “artificial leaves” produces a mixture of hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide, Syngas. The Syngas can be burned directly, or converted into diesel or other hydrocarbon fuels. This process efficiently and cheaply recycles atmospheric carbon to be reused once again as fuel by using relatively inexpensive materials in the cell. Argonne researchers also point out that the process occurs with minimal lost energy, which is crucial to energy efficiency and lowers the energy cost of recycling the CO₂.

Harnessing fuel from atmospheric CO₂ at a cost comparable to the cost of gasoline could potentially leave fossil fuels obsolete. Amin Salehi-Khojin believes that the UIC artificial leaf technology will be adaptable to both large-scale use (like solar farms) and small-scale applications. Solar farms that use this technology would not only be able to produce recycled fuel, but also would remove substantial amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, sequestering carbon like a forest would. This budding technology is diverse enough to actively be fighting global warming by removing green house gasses from the atmosphere and by adding to renewable energy sources, and has the capability to be economically practical.

The post Energy From Sunlight and Synthetic Leaves appeared first on Earth Day.

This new master plan is based around some similar ideas: affordable electric cars, and solar energy, but with a plethora of technological twists that Musk hopes will help usher in a sustainable future for all. The first goal set in the plan is the integration of energy generation and storage systems. With his strong confidence in the upcoming vote on Tesla’s acquisition of energy services provider SolarCity, Musk believes that the time to bring together an “integrated and beautiful solar-roof” and the Tesla Powerwall home battery is now.

As if bringing efficient, affordable, and accessible solar power to the world isn’t ambitious enough, it only gets better from there. The rest of the plan focuses on the company’s plans for their line of cars in the near future. In the wake of the recent announcement of the new Tesla Model 3, an affordable electric sports sedan coming in 2017, the company seeks to revolutionize the industry and address the needs of more global citizens than ever before. While the Tesla line currently has two offerings – the premium sedan Model S, and the SUV Model X – in the coming years they plan to release, along with the Model 3, a compact SUV, a pickup truck, a bus, and even an 18-wheeler.

With the plan for these vehicles comes an innovative suite of new technologies based around convenience, affordability, and sustainability. The two key areas for these technologies are autonomy and production. From buses that can match the speed of traffic to prevent congestion, to a car that can autonomously function as a ride sharing service when you’re not using it, the Tesla Autopilot “beta” has definitely got some hype to live up to. Combine that with highly-efficient Tesla automotive production super-center factories that conceptually could improve production as much as ten-fold, and you’ve got some a very bright and very cool future for Tesla and for the automotive industry as a whole.

The post Tesla’s Master Plan Part Deux appeared first on Earth Day.

Previously, solar power plants had depended on back up energy plants powered by carbon emitting fuels because a solar system’s peak generation hours do not coincide with the utility’s peak load hours after 5 p.m. Low sunlight meant low energy generation, and this challenge scaled back the environmental benefits of solar plants. Building or using a second power plant (powered by fossil fuels) paired with every solar plant, to produce energy for the night energy demand, was not an ideal solution. With the solar thermal technology that issue has been overcome. The Crescent Dunes facility has 10 hours of full load storage that allows for reliable on-demand energy production. It currently produces energy for around 75,000 local homes with more than 500,000 MW-hours of energy that it produces annually.

While this is a great development for the growing demand for clean energy, it’s not perfect. SolarReserve has entered into a 25-year power supply contract with NV Energy supplying power at $135 per MW-hour, but new natural gas plants are able to supply power for less than half that price ($52 per MW-hour). However, this technology would be more economically efficient in areas where natural gas and other conventional fuels are more expensive.  There have also been reports that the project might be dangerous for birds.  In its testing, biologists on site reported seeing multiple birds killed by vaporization when flying near or into the solar flux created by the mirrors aimed at the tower. The birds are attracted to the area supposedly by a “desert mirage,” the false appearance of water caused by the heat and mirrors in the desert basin, but since the vaporization incidents, the mirrors have been re-angled to create a less intense, non-lethal solar flux to mitigate the number of bird casualties.

There are still many ways that solar power can be improved, but this new 24/7 solar thermal plant (and the other two concentrated solar plants SolarReserve is constructing in Africa and Chile) is leading a clean energy revolution, critical progress in the diverse environmental movement.

The post 24 Hour Solar Power appeared first on Earth Day.

Given the need for future production of solar cell to be more sustainable, a game-changing technology may be 3-D printed solar panels. More efficient, less complex, and cheaper, they can capture more sunlight than conventional photovoltaic (PV) models. Furthermore, researchers at the University of Melbourne, using a solar-cell printer, discovered how to print flexible solar panels that can be produced on a huge roll of plastic, giving them the ability to print cells 10 times larger than they could before.

According to Scott Watkins of Kyung-In Synthetic, these 3D printed solar cells have already been used in India. “I’ve witnessed first-hand how the technology has enabled urban poor communities in India to access off-grid electricity,” says Watkins. “Its success is due to its cost effectiveness and simplicity. A 10×10 cm solar cell film is enough to generate as much as 10-50 watts per square meter.” Watkins last year spoke about the technology during the Smart Villages session of the World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, South Korea.

This technology can dramatically increase the rate of production while decreasing the costs. So far, companies have mostly produced solar cells with industrial printing capacity. However, by owning the means of production and having them produced locally, people will be able to manufacture their own solar panels and customize them to their own needs, in any form, shape or size. This means that there is no need for economies of scale to get a great deal on solar power.

While installation is the dominate cost for solar power, it is estimated that precision 3D printing could drop production costs by 50% by eliminating many of the inefficiencies associating with the waste of costly materials such as glass, polysilicon or even indium. The fact that 3D printing can take place just about anywhere should mitigate the lofty shipping costs.

Of course, just like most other new technologies, the new printed cells are not without their development hurdles.  Bernie Jones, a co-leader of the Smart Villages Initiative, states that although the method of producing the solar film strips at a low cost has been perfected, replicating the process to other production facilities will require a large amount of capital.

The post 3D customized printed solar panels appeared first on Earth Day.

Simran Vedvyas
Founder SynergY
Youth Ambassador Plant for the Planet
Global Champion Earth Hour 2015

The Earth Day Network is happy to partner with SynergY the Dubai Municipality, Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), Accor and Goumbook as the organizations promote energy conservation, environmental education, and youth leadership during this Earth Day season.

Simran Vedvyas founded SynergY as a student, and since its inception the youth advocacy group has spread, making a great impact in Dubai’s community most notably through the Earth Hour campaign and the Plant for the Planet campaign.

The recent Plant for the Planet campaign by Accor Hotels and Goumbook aims to plant 1000 native Ghaf trees through the Give a Ghaf Tree Planting Programin various landfills in the UAE during this year. The first event of the Plant for the Planet campaign was held on February 28th, planting 100 trees at Al Warsan Landfill in Dubai and the next event is upcoming in April, in the occasion of Earth Day, both with the support of Dubai Municipality.

Previous planting efforts coordinated by Vedvyas and the Dubai Municipality have been wildly successful in educating the citizens, especially students, about environmental degradation and how they can reduce their environmental impact.  In 2013, more than 1000 trees were planted and students from over 25 institutions and schools in Dubai were involved in the educational experience. Dubai Municipality is regarded as one of the largest governmental institutions in the U.A.E, providing countless services for the community and promoting the green evolution in Dubai. The senior officials from Dubai Municipality welcome the community participation and find time to be present during the tree plantation work at the landfill, encouraging and motivating the youngsters toward a green future.

Less than a month before Earth Day, Earth Hour will be hosted on March 28th. This is a significant environmental initiative worldwide, during which millions of people across the globe gather to spread awareness. SynergY will participate by setting up a booth and many interactive activities to raise awareness supported by Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), under the patronage of HH Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Chairman of Dubai Executive Council. The event is held in partnership with Dubai Supreme Council of Energy (DSCE) and Emirates Wildlife Society (EWS), which works in association with the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), and in cooperation with Dubai Properties Group.  Last year’s Earth Hour campaign involved 7000 cities all around the globe. The event is huge in Dubai, and also makes waves on an international scale.  The event forms a platform for the rulers of UAE and local authorities to reach-out to the community about environmental awareness.

This year, SynergY along with its partners and supporters find this network and public forum appropriate to speak about the environment in conjunction with the Global Day of Conversation campaign.  During this time, SynergY will also include student workshops and “mini- educational academies.”

The message that we are hoping to spread is summed up by Simran Vedvyas:

“As a youth living in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and an environmentalist, I understand the situation and crisis that the world is facing today with increased energy demands and depleting energy resources. The solutions and action to deal with the predicament are not enough. Some of us are convincing as we make resolutions towards a greener future but the results have to be more promising. This is why youth like me, are determined to make a change by collaborating efforts to walk on the path towards sustainability. By participating in events like Earth Hour and Earth Day in Dubai, we join to support the international efforts which aim at minimizing carbon emissions and greenhouse gases, and environmental pollution, providing sustainable solutions for global warming and climate change, as well as protecting the environment and preserving natural resources for generations to come.

Earth Hour is just 60 minutes. It’s for the benefit of our ‘Mother Earth’.Use your power to change climate change – because everyone has the power to change the world.”

Supporting Links-
https://www.thenational.ae/uae/environment/uae-reforestation-scheme-begins
https://gulftoday.ae/portal/dcdfe347-213b-43ef-9763-5152aabce174.aspx
https://www.godubai.com/citylife/press_release_page.asp?PR=96615
https://m.gulfnews.com/news/uae/youth-organisation-promotes-eco-friendly-living-1.1164081
https://ameinfo.com/finance-and-economy/economy/education/synergy-youth-group-awarded-earth-hour-2014-dubai-electricity-water-authority/

The post SynergY is going big for Earth Day in Dubai appeared first on Earth Day.

America today stands at a historic crossroads. Our actions in the coming decades regarding energy production, use, and policy will play a critical role in the sustainability of our current ecosystems and earth resources. This past weekend, over a thousand people from across the U.S. joined a first-ever “people’s march” in DC to protest the gas industry’s push to export liquefied natural gas from U.S. coastlines. With a key decision nearing on the Cove Point export terminal, just 50 miles south of the White House, protesters are calling on President Obama and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to halt approval of all liquid natural gas export projects. Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) for natural gas is a high-risk path that’s benefits do not outweigh its consequences. Natural gas is commonly seen as a “cleaner” alternative to coal; this is a dangerous misconception. Yes, the burning of coal produces more soot and harmful byproducts than natural gas, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that the global warming potential of methane (the carbon content of natural gas) is 34 times greater than that of carbon dioxide over a 100-year time scale, and 86 times greater over a 20-year time scale. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), outdated in many informational aspects of fracking, reports the global warming potential of methane is a mere 21 times greater than that of carbon dioxide over a 100-year time scale. A recent study by Climate Action Tracker claims that to prevent global average temperatures from rising more than 2˚ Celsius (the internationally agreed-upon crisis point) no fossil fuels can be burned anywhere after 2050. If we truly wish to stay below the 2˚ limit, any steps toward further natural gas production are not feasible.

Not only is natural gas energy disastrous from a global warming standpoint, but the environmental impacts of fracking raise serious red flags. Fracking poses a significant threat to the integrity of the groundwater and ecosystem it affects. Functioning correctly, the wells introduce a fracking fluid cocktail (water, sand, and undisclosed chemicals) that draws concern itself. However, a Pennsylvania study reports that “about 40% of the oil and gas wells in parts of the Marcellus shale region will probably be leaking methane into the groundwater or into the atmosphere.”  This study also shows up to 2.7-fold higher risk for unconventional wells (built with newer technology relative to conventional wells) drilled since 2009. The environmental impacts of fracking, which will be explored further below, have incited opposition from Native American populations as well as other activist groups.  This problem is widespread, with 17 states already seeing fracking; at its current pace the fracking industry is projected to expand to California farmland, the Florida tropics, and the Great Lakes among other valuable sites.

The current federal regulation of fracking is almost nonexistent, prompting concerns about fracking’s environmental and public health risks which can be viewed at five stages of the process. First, water must be acquired. Each fracking job requires 3 to 9 million gallons of water. In areas where groundwater reserves are dwindling and a high concentration of fracking sites are present, the excessive use of a resource that plays a keystone ecological role is unsettling. It would be different if the water were returned to the ground from which it came without alteration, but the chemical additives of fracking fluid make the water damaging to its original ecosystem or displaced to a dump site or treatment facility. Second, the exact mixture of chemicals in fracking fluid is not published or known by anyone outside of the industry unless required by state law. Some states are taking frightening measures to protect the industry’s trade secrets, further securing up the possibility that untested chemicals pollute the ground of drill sites. Third, the deep well injection of fracking fluids may or may not contaminate groundwater tables—often the source of drinking water. Though common sense may indicate that injecting large quantities of chemical-laced fluid into unpredictable and cracked rock formations may seep into groundwater nearby, the EPA has not yet released its final study on the matter. In December 2010, the EPA released a report of a study conducted in Pavillion, WY. The study examined water in test wells near fracking sites and found it to contain BTEX compounds, Isoproponal, Diethylene glycol, and higher levels of dissolved methane—all of which are harmful to public health. Fourth, fracking fluid flow back creates surface wastewater. If not managed appropriately this flow back could contribute to surface runoff containing ecologically damaging chemicals. Fifth, if captured and contained, flow back must then be treated and/or disposed of. If not done responsibly, this can be a dangerous process for both ecosystems and public health.

In 2011, The House Committee on Energy and Commerce gathered information from oil and gas companies on the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. The committee discovered a number of potentially harmful chemicals in wide use.  The report stated that “oil and gas service companies used hydraulic fracturing products containing 29 chemicals that are (1) known or possible human carcinogens, (2) regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act for their risks to human health, or (3) listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.” The report also found that between 2005 and 2009, “fourteen oil and gas companies used more than 2,500 hydrofracking products containing 750 chemicals and other components. They used 780 million gallons of fracking products, not including water, which serves as the solvent.”  None of this is regulated due to strong industry lobbying around the exemption of fracking from Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) jurisdiction. The Eleventh Circuit Court held that fracking was to be regulated under §1421 of the SDWA in LEAF v. EPA. This victory was short-lived, however, as Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which conclusively withdrew fracking from the realm of federal regulation.

Multiple principles in American law point to the regulation of fracking as a reasonable course of action. A particularly important precedent in environmental policy is the “precautionary principle”, as discussed in Reserve Mining Co. v. EPA. In this case the Supreme Court held that uncertain potential harm to public health can justify the forced cease of the source of the harm. The Supreme Court also discussed the “policy space” allowing executive action created by precautionary language justified by risk of harm in the case Ethyl Corp. v. EPA. Both Congress (in the Clean Air Act, for example) and the Supreme Court have clearly upheld the precautionary principle, yet it is blatantly missing in regulation of the chemicals used in fracking. This lack of regulation strays from the notion of “health-based” standards, as seen in the Delaney Clauses and in Union Electric Co. v. EPA. In this case the Supreme Court held that in setting health-based or “technology-forcing” standards, economic or technological feasibility is irrelevant. Health-based standards require “de minimus” risk, and thus eliminate the balancing analysis of marginal cost of pollution abatement against the marginal benefit of pollution abatement. Drinking water regulation is a reasonably certain candidate for health-based regulation.

Without federal regulation, private landowners are in a weak position to fight fracking and hold companies accountable for damages. Even if plaintiffs can show causation, the expense of litigation and living with a continuous tort compels many to settle and sign non-disclosure agreements. Oftentimes leases near drilling sites contain non-disclosure provisions. The Coase theorem that bargaining through private nuisance litigation, seen in the early landmark case Madison v. Ducktown Sulphur, can be more effective than public regulation fails in this case, as it doesn’t take into account transaction (litigation) costs. A person who lacks a basic necessity like clean drinking water likely lacks the resources, willpower, or time to engage in drawn-out negotiations or litigation with the polluter. Instead, they are likely to accept any offer the polluter puts on the table, freeing the polluter of culpability. This recently played out in Dimock, PA, where residents agreed to a $4.1 million settlement for clean water from Cabot Oil and Gas, despite concerns by landowners that this amount was inadequate to compensate their financial, health, and environmental losses. Federally regulated informational parity helping landowners make informed decisions, paired with a “polluter pays principle” shifting the burden of proof unto the polluter would be of paramount aid to landowners affected by fracking.

The ubiquitous risks of fracking are explored in a comprehensive manner by the Concerned Health Professionals of New York’s Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking published in June of this year. Further Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) research on the impacts of fracking is will be published to the Federal Register in 2014, and upon its release it is very likely that regulation of the process will need to be reformed on the federal level. By amending the SDWA to reverse the frustratingly shortsighted and misinformed Energy Policy Act of 2005 fracking exemption and specifically include fracking in its regulatory scope, the EPA would be given discretion to set Maximum Contamination Levels for chemicals used in fracking and regulate drilling companies’ activity. An entirely new bill to regulate the fracking industry would also be a valid option.

There have been some steps in the right direction, such as the New York Court of Appeals decision allowing towns to ban fracking, but federal legislative action regulating the natural gas industry will be needed to make sure the trajectory of this energy industry does not have catastrophic impacts on our earth and public health. The Earth Day Network hopes to see a productive congressional response to the EPA’s 2014 fracking study, as well an American populace knowledgeable of fracking’s climate and groundwater impacts.

Author: Ben Criswell, EDN Intern

The post Fracking: Impacts and Solutions appeared first on Earth Day.

This edition of the Carbon Pollution, Climate Policy and the Built Environment blog series will focus on U.S. buildings. The generation of electricity is the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the number one source of energy consumption for U.S. buildings. According to the Department of Energy’s buildings energy data book, U.S. buildings account for 39% of primary energy consumption and 72% of all electricity consumed domestically. Buildings accounted for more energy use than the entire U.S. transportation sector in 2006 and produced more greenhouse gases than any other country in the world except China.

The two most common sources of energy for buildings are purchased electricity and direct consumption of natural gas and petroleum for heating and cooking. Electricity accounts for approximately 78% of total building energy consumption and largely contributes to GHG emissions. According to EPA, GHG emissions from electricity have increased by about 18% since 1990, as the demand for electricity has grown and fossil fuel has remained the dominant source for generation. The amount of energy consumed has quadrupled since 1940, while the population roughly doubled. A sharp increase in housing units has also contributed to this trend. There were 140 million housing units in 2011, an increase of more than 250% since 1940.

The impact of buildings on energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions is undeniable. What can we do to address this issue? The DOE has established national efficiency standards for appliances, lighting products and equipment. The standards regulate more than 55 products manufactured or imported for sale in the U.S. In collaboration with the EPA, the DOE has also created a voluntary ENERGY STAR program to help consumers and businesses identify the most energy-efficient products, homes, buildings, and practices. In his recent Climate Action Plan, President Obama promised to establish heightened efficiency standards, particularly among government buildings. These standards are expected to reduce consumers’ electricity bills by hundreds of billions of dollars by 2030 and save enough electricity to power more than 85 million homes for two years.

Unfortunately, many of the efficiency guidelines are not mandatory. It is largely up to building owners to adopt them. Therefore, it is important that climate policies integrate strategies to increase public awareness about the resources and programs available. There also need to be stricter energy codes for buildings, not just for appliances. The climate plan needs to include strategies to address these issues.

Finding responsible and efficient ways to green buildings must be a centerpiece of our efforts to cut carbon pollution. This will require proper energy efficiency standards and guidelines. Fortunately, buildings are relatively adaptable. Next week, we’ll assess the EPA’s suggestions for constructing more energy-efficient buildings and renovating existing structures.

Are you trying to live a more sustainable lifestyle? Check out our Ecological Footprint Quiz and learn how you can minimize your impact on the planet.
– Written by Jiin G. Park

Jiin G. Park is an intern at Earth Day Network and a MA candidate in Environmental Conservation Education at New York University.

The post How Do Buildings Contribute to Greenhouse Gas Emissions? appeared first on Earth Day.

Back in 2010, Earth Day Network launched A Billion Acts of Green®, an effort to collect one billion individual acts of environmental service and help people commit to living more sustainably. The campaign was a massive success. On Earth Day 2012, we reached our goal of one billion Acts of Green, completing the world’s largest environmental service campaign.

A Billion Acts of Green® was so well-received that we decided to keep the campaign going, setting our sights on two billion Acts of Green. And now, we are vamping up our commitment once again. Over the next several months, we will be unveiling a new series of actions to help you reduce your carbon footprint and live more sustainably.

Today, we’re proud to introduce our first new BAG action: Slaying Vampire Energy. Even when household appliances are turned off, they still consume electricity—called “vampire energy”—in order to power displays and remote controls, and charge batteries. Just in the US, more than 100 billion kilowatt hours are wasted every year because of vampire energy, costing American consumers over $11 billion! That means the average US home pays $120 every year on vampire energy—a huge waste of money.

Aside from higher electricity bills, vampire energy also contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Most electricity is produced by fossil fuel power plants, which means that to produce electricity, we must burn fossil fuels, thereby releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. 100 billion kilowatt hours of vampire energy (that’s just for one year in the U.S., mind you) produce nearly 80 million tons of carbon dioxide, the equivalent of the annual carbon emissions from about 15 million cars.

Vampire energy is a serious burden—on both our wallets and our environment. Fortunately, it’s an easy problem to fix. Here are a few easy things that you can do to save money and reduce your carbon footprint:

1. Unplug appliances and chargers that consume vampire energy when they are not in use.
2. If you have multiple appliances in the same area, use power strips to regulate the flow of electricity.
3. When old appliances die, replace them with new energy efficient appliances.

Make the pledge today to reduce the amount of electricity you waste in your home! Tell your friends and family to join the movement! And engage with us on Twitter: #ActOfGreen.

We’ll be unveiling a new set of actions next month, so stay tuned! Thank you for participating in A Billion Acts of Green®, and for taking steps to reduce your carbon footprint and live more sustainably.

The post A Billion Acts of Green: Slaying Vampire Energy appeared first on Earth Day.