Light emitting diode (LED) fluorescent tubes begin to catch on with consumers—but do the long-term savings outpace the upfront investment?
Light emitting diode (LED) fluorescent tubes are all the rage in the lighting market these days. The technology promises to be more energy efficient, less environmentally harmful and more economical than traditional fluorescent tube lighting. Still, there is a lot of debate over whether they are ready for widespread commercial use.
We recently came across an instance in which this very debate was being discussed in a LinkedIn electrical construction group. It was a heated thread with two electrical contractors hashing out the pros and cons of using LED fluorescent tubes. To continue our series of articles on “green” construction, we thought we’d tackle the issue ourselves. So here we present our findings on LED fluorescent tubes.
What is a LED Fluorescent Tube? Actually, “LED fluorescent tube” is a misnomer. LED lights and fluorescent lights are completely different technologies. LEDs are very small bulbs illuminated by movement of electrons in a diode. Fluorescent bulbs use electrodes and a gas combination of argon and mercury to produce light. As such, the name “LED fluorescent tube” really refers to an LED tube that reminds us of traditional fluorescent tubes (such as the one that is likely overhead as you read this).
LED lights should also not be confused with compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs. CFLs use the same technology as fluorescent tubes to produce light, but on a smaller scale. They are a replacement for the incandescent bulbs commonly found in most home light fixtures. CFLs have garnered a lot of press because of their energy efficiency and environmental benefits (i.e., they are considered to be greener than traditional lights because they use less power).
An LED tube is made up of hundreds of individual LEDs. They come in a variety of sizes (2, 4 or 6 feet), different temperatures (i.e., different colors of light), and varying arrays of LEDs. They can be purchased with new fixtures, or used for retrofitting existing fixtures. However, they don’t require the ballasts that traditional fluorescents need, so those will need to be removed when replacing fluorescent bulbs with LED tubes.
When comparing LEDs to fluorescent tubes, here are four key specifications that should be reviewed:
* Lumens – This is the unit of measurement for strength of light. Look for tubes with 1500 lumens or more.
* Watts – This is a unit of measurement for power consumption. Four-foot LED tubes typically use 15 to 25 watts, while fluorescent tubes of this size use more than 30 watts.
* Lifespan – This is how long the bulb will last. It’s measured in hours. 50,000 hours is common for LED tubes.
* Color temperature – The temperature of the light is the color of the light. It is measured in units of absolute temperature, or Kelvin (K). 3000K is considered warm (redder), 4100K is considered neutral, and 5800 K is cool (bluer).
Pros and Cons of LED and Fluorescent Tubes. To give recognition where it’s due, fluorescent tubes are a great invention. They have been lighting most of America ever since GE brought them to market back in 1938. They are four to six times more energy efficient than incandescent bulbs and are said to last 10 to 20 times longer. Of course, they come with their own set of disadvantages, as well.
Fluorescent tubes contain mercury and phosphor, which present a number of health and environmental risks. The lights require a ballast, which adds to the cost of the lamp and can cause a buzzing noise. Finally, they frequently flicker, and the light is often drab.
On the other hand, LED bulbs last longer than fluorescents, and they don’t contain harmful ingredients like mercury. Perhaps most signficantly, LEDs use much less power than fluorescent lamps -- and there are many other benefits, as well.
Still, LEDs aren’t perfect. The tubes are generally not as bright and can cost more up front. And unfortunately, cost will likely be the number-one driver of greater adoption. So let’s compare the costs of each type of bulb:
Costs of LED Tubes vs Fluorescent Tubes. The debate over LED vs fluorescent tubes always teeters when it comes to the cost argument. When comparing the upfront cost of one LED tube to one fluorescent tube, fluorescent wins, hands-down. However, when you consider volume discounts and the longer lifespan of LEDs, the scale leans the opposite direction. Let’s compare the costs of each taking these factors into consideration.
This table compares the first-year cost of a single commercial-grade (i.e., UL and CE compliant), four-foot T8 LED tube to a four-foot T8 fluorescent tube. To measure kilowatts per year, we assumed the lights would be on for 12 hours a day, 255 days a year. We used an average energy rating of 20 watts per hour for LEDs and 32 for fluorescents. To calculate energy cost, we used an average cost per kilowatt of $0.11.
Clearly, fluorescents are less expensive in the first year. However, when you account for product longevity, LED tubes are the winner. LED tubes last an average of 50,000 hours (roughly 16 years) while fluorescent T8 tubes last an average of 25,000 (roughly 8 years). To determine this, we looked at every fluorescent T8 tube that Sylvania offers (nearly 150) and calculated average lifespan. To be precise, it was 24,787.67 hours.
In this next table, we compare the 16-year cost (the lifespan of an LED tube) of 40 LED tubes compared to 40 fluorescent tubes. In this example, the number 40 is somewhat arbitrary. We have 20 2′ x 4′ fixtures in our office, so we chose 40 bulbs as our basis of comparison. Keep in mind, fluorescent fixtures require ballasts, so we’ll need to tack on an additional $400 to fluorescent tubes (20 ballasts at $20).
Using prices from our previous table, in the first year it will cost $3,069 for the energy and initial purchase of 40 LED tubes. The fluorescent tubes would cost $1,071. Every year thereafter, the energy costs of LED tubes will be $269, and $431 for the fluorescents. In the eighth year, the fluorescent bulbs will need to be replaced at a cost of $240.
You’ll notice the numbers in our table look a little different. That’s because we’ve included an annual energy inflation rate of 5%. We also used a 2.5% inflation rate to calculate the cost of the replacement fluorescent bulbs in the eighth year. Finally, we used a 6% discount rate to determine the net present value (NPV).
As our analysis reveals, the 16-year cost for 40 LED tubes is $6,431, while the cost for fluorescent tubes is $6,846. This is 6% in savings over the life of the tubes. Keep in mind, this is only 40 tubes. Building owners with more light fixtures will realize more savings, as the volume discount will be greater and energy costs will be lower. So, over the lifespan of the product, LED tubes are more cost effective than fluorescent tubes.
A Bright Future for LED Tubes. The cost of manufacturing LEDs is dropping. Researchers at Purdue University have developed a way to create LEDs using inexpensive, metal-coated silicon wafers instead of expensive sapphire-based bulbs. This discovery has the potential to bring the cost down to levels competitive with fluorescent tubes. You can stay up to date on news of this development over at the Eartheasy blog.
In the meantime, there’s no reason electrical contractors shouldn’t promote LED tubes. LED tubes can help building owners achieve eligibility for government and utility company incentives. They help companies capture the desirable -- and highly marketable -- green cachet. They provide greater energy cost savings than fluorescents. And finally, they are simply better for the Earth. They are the future of commercial lighting.
Source: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/are-led-fluorescent-tubes-ready-for-prime-time/
Monday, June 14, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Effluent treatment plants to be mandatory for restaurants
Restaurants, banquet halls and eating joints in the city will soon have to install effluent treatment plants (ETPs) with the Delhi Government taking steps to implement the recent order of the Centre in this regard.
"Initially, we will start with an awareness programme regarding the effluent standards for the hotels notified by the Environment Ministry," said a senior official from Delhi environment department.
The official said a public notice will soon be issued to the owners of restaurants, eating joints such as 'dhabas', banquet halls and similar other units having minimum seating capacity of 36 for adhering to the norms.
Till now, there were no specific standards to keep a tab on the discharge of effluents being generated by such businesses which usually get mixed with city sewerage and are discharged into the rivers or contaminate groundwater.
These units will be checked on the basis of effluent parameters that have been defined by the environment ministry.
Also, with the water availability proving to be major problem, the hotel industry is being encouraged to set up on-site waste water treatment facilities for recycling of water for gardening and other non-domestic use.
The ETPs would be brought under regulatory mechanism for effective monitoring and pollution control.
"Though some big hotels have installed treatment plants, small restaurants and banquets have no such facilities. But now they cannot escape from their responsibilities," the official added.
"Initially, we will start with an awareness programme regarding the effluent standards for the hotels notified by the Environment Ministry," said a senior official from Delhi environment department.
The official said a public notice will soon be issued to the owners of restaurants, eating joints such as 'dhabas', banquet halls and similar other units having minimum seating capacity of 36 for adhering to the norms.
Till now, there were no specific standards to keep a tab on the discharge of effluents being generated by such businesses which usually get mixed with city sewerage and are discharged into the rivers or contaminate groundwater.
These units will be checked on the basis of effluent parameters that have been defined by the environment ministry.
Also, with the water availability proving to be major problem, the hotel industry is being encouraged to set up on-site waste water treatment facilities for recycling of water for gardening and other non-domestic use.
The ETPs would be brought under regulatory mechanism for effective monitoring and pollution control.
"Though some big hotels have installed treatment plants, small restaurants and banquets have no such facilities. But now they cannot escape from their responsibilities," the official added.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Save Water - Mumbai following Delhi's way...
The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) is considering laying separate water pipeline to supply potable and non potable water to citizens on the line of Delhi.
Municipal commissioner Swadheen Kshatriya announced it on the demand made by Union Minister of State for Communications and IT Gurudas Kamat who is also MP from Mumbai Northwest constituency. Kamat met Kshatriya to discuss various issues related to the city and his constituency.
“I suggested the BMC to adopt the Delhi pattern under which recycled water is used for non potable purpose through separate lines to avoid wastage of potable water.” said Kamat.
The BMC said it is open to adopt the pattern used by civic government in Delhi. “I agree with the Kamat's suggestion as I saw two separate water lines for potable and non potable when I was in Delhi for some time. It will work in the city as well,“ said Kshatriya.
The civic body has planned for recycling plant at six locations in the city to supply water for non potable purpose.
“As phase I, we will commence recycle plants with BOT basis and then will be laid pipeline for supply,“ Kshatirya added. The civic body is also considering giving rights to private agency to sell non potable water to the industrial area.
The city is currently reeling under an unprecedented water crisis, with a 15 per cent cuts imposed on the residential users and a 30 per cent on the commercial users.
Apart from water issue Kamat has also demanded that the civic body should keep open spaces reserved under Recreation Ground, Play Ground and Gardens as open. “Also those, whose leases are still on, should be strictly monitored and public access should be ensured. While those who have developed private clubs and whose lease ended should be taken place in spite of 810 years possession like Matoshree sports club in Jogeshwari, such allotments should be cancelled forthwith, “said Kamat.
Kamat also submitted a Memorandum expressing concern about the Water situation in Mumbai and the need to desilt all lakes and reservoirs, to ensure the storage capacity of water.
To strictly ensure usage of Solar Electricity in all new buildings as agreed to by the government of Maharashtra.
To ensure that Recreation Grounds and Playgrounds are accessible to the common man and no private clubs be allowed. BMC: Developer should declare carpet area The BMC will ensure that no proposals for the development will be accepted, unless the developer would declare the carpet floor space index to be sale. This will be strictly monitored by the civic body Building Proposal department, said BMC chief Swadheen Kshatriya.
Gurudas Kamat MP, led a delegation comprising of Congress MLA's and corporators met municipal chief to discuss various issues including carpet area issue. “Though the rule exists about flat purchasing and selling should be as per carpet area is not implemented properly,“ alleged Kamat.
From Hindustan Times, 15th May, 2010
Municipal commissioner Swadheen Kshatriya announced it on the demand made by Union Minister of State for Communications and IT Gurudas Kamat who is also MP from Mumbai Northwest constituency. Kamat met Kshatriya to discuss various issues related to the city and his constituency.
“I suggested the BMC to adopt the Delhi pattern under which recycled water is used for non potable purpose through separate lines to avoid wastage of potable water.” said Kamat.
The BMC said it is open to adopt the pattern used by civic government in Delhi. “I agree with the Kamat's suggestion as I saw two separate water lines for potable and non potable when I was in Delhi for some time. It will work in the city as well,“ said Kshatriya.
The civic body has planned for recycling plant at six locations in the city to supply water for non potable purpose.
“As phase I, we will commence recycle plants with BOT basis and then will be laid pipeline for supply,“ Kshatirya added. The civic body is also considering giving rights to private agency to sell non potable water to the industrial area.
The city is currently reeling under an unprecedented water crisis, with a 15 per cent cuts imposed on the residential users and a 30 per cent on the commercial users.
Apart from water issue Kamat has also demanded that the civic body should keep open spaces reserved under Recreation Ground, Play Ground and Gardens as open. “Also those, whose leases are still on, should be strictly monitored and public access should be ensured. While those who have developed private clubs and whose lease ended should be taken place in spite of 810 years possession like Matoshree sports club in Jogeshwari, such allotments should be cancelled forthwith, “said Kamat.
Kamat also submitted a Memorandum expressing concern about the Water situation in Mumbai and the need to desilt all lakes and reservoirs, to ensure the storage capacity of water.
To strictly ensure usage of Solar Electricity in all new buildings as agreed to by the government of Maharashtra.
To ensure that Recreation Grounds and Playgrounds are accessible to the common man and no private clubs be allowed. BMC: Developer should declare carpet area The BMC will ensure that no proposals for the development will be accepted, unless the developer would declare the carpet floor space index to be sale. This will be strictly monitored by the civic body Building Proposal department, said BMC chief Swadheen Kshatriya.
Gurudas Kamat MP, led a delegation comprising of Congress MLA's and corporators met municipal chief to discuss various issues including carpet area issue. “Though the rule exists about flat purchasing and selling should be as per carpet area is not implemented properly,“ alleged Kamat.
From Hindustan Times, 15th May, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Iceland - The cleanest country in the world
Iceland is the cleanest country in the world. This may be hard to believe right now, what with the clouds of volcanic ash grounding flights across northern Europe, but according to researchers at Yale and Columbia universities, the Nordic island ranks first out of 163 countries on their Environmental Performance Index.
Researchers ranked countries based on 25 indicators, including water and air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and the impact of the environment on the health of the population. (For more detail on the methodology, click here.) A score of 100 is excellent. Sierra Leone ranks at the bottom of the list with a score of 32. The U.S. ranks in the middle of the pack with 63.5. Iceland took top honors with a score of 93.5 thanks to ample clean water, lots of protected nature areas, good national health care and a plenitude of usually clean geothermal power.
Will Eyjafjallajokull wreck Iceland's rating the next time the academics run the numbers in 2012? The answer is no. "We do not score natural disasters," says Daniel Esty, a professor of environmental law at Yale who heads up the EPI and wrote the acclaimed book Green to Gold. The index is weighted to metrics that track how governments are performing relative to environmental policy goals, such as access to adequate sanitation and water, habitat protection and industrial emissions. The amount of sulfur dioxide released from fuel usage counts, not what's put out by volcanoes.
There are two paths that can take a country to the top of the EPI rankings. First, a country could be gifted with a rich endowment of clean water, diverse biology and not have sullied it with rampant industrialism. That's how Cuba, Colombia and Costa Rica placed so high.
Alternatively, a country could have industrialized and polluted its environment, but eventually gotten rich enough to start cleaning it up. That's the case with the European countries that make up more than half of the top 30.
"The richer you become, the more polluted you become, to a point. Then you become cleaner," says Christine Kim of Yale, research director for the EPI.
The U.S. is still on the upswing, says Esty. "Forty years ago the U.S would have had bad scores" like China (rank: 121st) and India (123rd). America, as it's matured, has made big strides in cleaning up lakes, rivers and streams, with clean drinking water available to practically the entire population. Air quality has gotten much better in places like Los Angeles. What's more, "no country is a better forest steward," says Esty. And despite the plague of pine bark beetles laying waste to millions of acres of forests across the west, "the U.S. is re-foresting at a rapid rate."
Sounds good, so why does the U.S. rank so much lower than those Europeans? "People in the U.S. are shocked the U.S. ranks so low. In Europe they're shocked the U.S. ranks so high," says Esty.
Trace the cognitive dissonance to greenhouse gas emissions, where the U.S. places very poorly because of our reliance on coal for 50% of power generation and our reliance on cars to traverse wide-open spaces. America's fully industrialized peers Japan (ranked 20th), Germany (17th) and the U.K. (14th) did far better. The best way for America to improve its score: make a big push toward generating power from nuclear and natural gas.
But could we ever place better than Cuba, which is ranked ninth? Well, Cuba's scant industrial base limits pollution, while socialized health care helps limit environmental-related illness. At least that's what the data claims.
"There's some made-up data out of Cuba," says Esty. They have problems with the veracity of China's data, too. The U.S. on the other hand has very high data quality because "we [in the U.S.] are able to get bad news published." Despite misgivings on Cuban data, "we don't use our judgment on data to push down countries' rankings."
Another unusual case is Belgium, which lags far behind its neighbors France, the Netherlands and Germany and the rest of Western Europe. Belgium is in 88th place, on par with Ukraine and lower than any other European country. The data on Belgium shows "incontrovertible systematic underperformance," says Esty. Less nuclear power, worse water quality and less protection of open spaces.
Esty cautions that it's more useful for policymakers to compare a country's results with those in its peer group. Desert countries will have trouble scoring high in the rankings because of their complete lack of emissions-free hydropower, and limited ecological diversity. Yet in the 2010 study, for the first time, the researchers decided to count sea water desalination as a renewable water source. This helps the oil-rich countries, which can afford to build desalination plants. (See "Making Sweet Water From (Almost) Perpetual Motion.")
In an enviro-measurement quandry, those oil and gas-rich regimes like Saudi Arabia (99th place) and Qatar (122th), don't get docked for the environmental impact of their exported hydrocarbons.
Esty says that of the 75 nations to give feedback to his researchers on their EPI rankings, none has been more outraged than South Korea. Landing in 94th place, between Gabon and Nicaragua, South Koreans see this study as an insult unbefitting their status as a first-world developed nation. The South Korean ambassador filed a protest. A bureaucrat even called up research director Christine Kim's grandmother back home in South Korea to complain. The South Koreans' overly rosy environmental self-assessment might have something to do with the worse performance of neighboring China and North Korea (147th place). Esty says the data on low levels of biodiversity and significant air pollution aren't in doubt.
A bastion of hope and irony: the most biodiverse place on the Korean Peninsula is the demilitarized zone, says Esty. Yet some of the deer there, because of landmines, only have three legs.
By: Christopher Helman, Forbes.com
Researchers ranked countries based on 25 indicators, including water and air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and the impact of the environment on the health of the population. (For more detail on the methodology, click here.) A score of 100 is excellent. Sierra Leone ranks at the bottom of the list with a score of 32. The U.S. ranks in the middle of the pack with 63.5. Iceland took top honors with a score of 93.5 thanks to ample clean water, lots of protected nature areas, good national health care and a plenitude of usually clean geothermal power.
Will Eyjafjallajokull wreck Iceland's rating the next time the academics run the numbers in 2012? The answer is no. "We do not score natural disasters," says Daniel Esty, a professor of environmental law at Yale who heads up the EPI and wrote the acclaimed book Green to Gold. The index is weighted to metrics that track how governments are performing relative to environmental policy goals, such as access to adequate sanitation and water, habitat protection and industrial emissions. The amount of sulfur dioxide released from fuel usage counts, not what's put out by volcanoes.
There are two paths that can take a country to the top of the EPI rankings. First, a country could be gifted with a rich endowment of clean water, diverse biology and not have sullied it with rampant industrialism. That's how Cuba, Colombia and Costa Rica placed so high.
Alternatively, a country could have industrialized and polluted its environment, but eventually gotten rich enough to start cleaning it up. That's the case with the European countries that make up more than half of the top 30.
"The richer you become, the more polluted you become, to a point. Then you become cleaner," says Christine Kim of Yale, research director for the EPI.
The U.S. is still on the upswing, says Esty. "Forty years ago the U.S would have had bad scores" like China (rank: 121st) and India (123rd). America, as it's matured, has made big strides in cleaning up lakes, rivers and streams, with clean drinking water available to practically the entire population. Air quality has gotten much better in places like Los Angeles. What's more, "no country is a better forest steward," says Esty. And despite the plague of pine bark beetles laying waste to millions of acres of forests across the west, "the U.S. is re-foresting at a rapid rate."
Sounds good, so why does the U.S. rank so much lower than those Europeans? "People in the U.S. are shocked the U.S. ranks so low. In Europe they're shocked the U.S. ranks so high," says Esty.
Trace the cognitive dissonance to greenhouse gas emissions, where the U.S. places very poorly because of our reliance on coal for 50% of power generation and our reliance on cars to traverse wide-open spaces. America's fully industrialized peers Japan (ranked 20th), Germany (17th) and the U.K. (14th) did far better. The best way for America to improve its score: make a big push toward generating power from nuclear and natural gas.
But could we ever place better than Cuba, which is ranked ninth? Well, Cuba's scant industrial base limits pollution, while socialized health care helps limit environmental-related illness. At least that's what the data claims.
"There's some made-up data out of Cuba," says Esty. They have problems with the veracity of China's data, too. The U.S. on the other hand has very high data quality because "we [in the U.S.] are able to get bad news published." Despite misgivings on Cuban data, "we don't use our judgment on data to push down countries' rankings."
Another unusual case is Belgium, which lags far behind its neighbors France, the Netherlands and Germany and the rest of Western Europe. Belgium is in 88th place, on par with Ukraine and lower than any other European country. The data on Belgium shows "incontrovertible systematic underperformance," says Esty. Less nuclear power, worse water quality and less protection of open spaces.
Esty cautions that it's more useful for policymakers to compare a country's results with those in its peer group. Desert countries will have trouble scoring high in the rankings because of their complete lack of emissions-free hydropower, and limited ecological diversity. Yet in the 2010 study, for the first time, the researchers decided to count sea water desalination as a renewable water source. This helps the oil-rich countries, which can afford to build desalination plants. (See "Making Sweet Water From (Almost) Perpetual Motion.")
In an enviro-measurement quandry, those oil and gas-rich regimes like Saudi Arabia (99th place) and Qatar (122th), don't get docked for the environmental impact of their exported hydrocarbons.
Esty says that of the 75 nations to give feedback to his researchers on their EPI rankings, none has been more outraged than South Korea. Landing in 94th place, between Gabon and Nicaragua, South Koreans see this study as an insult unbefitting their status as a first-world developed nation. The South Korean ambassador filed a protest. A bureaucrat even called up research director Christine Kim's grandmother back home in South Korea to complain. The South Koreans' overly rosy environmental self-assessment might have something to do with the worse performance of neighboring China and North Korea (147th place). Esty says the data on low levels of biodiversity and significant air pollution aren't in doubt.
A bastion of hope and irony: the most biodiverse place on the Korean Peninsula is the demilitarized zone, says Esty. Yet some of the deer there, because of landmines, only have three legs.
By: Christopher Helman, Forbes.com
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Modular homes made from recycled plastic
By Anthony Clark
A Welsh company, Affresol, has developed the technology to build affordable low carbon homes from recycled waste plastic and minerals – including packaging and manufacturing waste. Each house consists of approximately 18 tonnes of material that would otherwise be destined for landfill.
The first of the modular buildings has been ordered by Worcester Bosch, a UK manufacturer of domestic heating and hot water systems, for its plant in Warndon, Worcestershire. Supplying Affresol with plastic recovered from recycled boilers will enable the heating specialist to achieve a zero waste policy.
Affresol has developed a material called Thermo Poly Rock (TPR) from recycled plastics and minerals for use as a structural building product. The patented process uses a low energy cold process which converts the plastics into a strong structural element.
The TPR panels are bolted together to form the load bearing frame of the house, which can be externally clad using a material of choice (brick, block or stone), and the interior insulated and plastered as standard. The roof is tiled from recycled materials.
Outlining the benefits, managing director Ian McPherson said TPR is stronger and lighter than concrete, waterproof, fire retardant, does not rot and has excellent insulation properties.
A sustainable code 4/5 home built using TPR can be up to 12% cheaper than standard build, the TPR superstructure can be erected on site within four days. The houses have an estimated life cycle of more than 60 years and the TPR elements are 100% recyclable at the end of life.
The company has spent the last two years working with Cardiff and Glamorgan universities, the Building Research Establishment (BRE) and the Carbon Trust developing the product.
The Welsh Assembly Government also provided support through the Single Investment Fund in the test and development stage, setting up an automated production facility and in the final stages leading up to accreditation.
Finance Wales, a provider of commercial funding to businesses in Wales and a subsidiary company of the Assembly Government, has also provided debt investment in the business
McPherson said: “Our management team and business partners believe there is tremendous potential for this new product particularly with the growing focus on carbon reduction, low energy affordable homes and sustainability.”
Affresol forecast building 3,000 homes per annum – recycling 40,000 tonnes of waste – with the main market being affordable homes for social housing.
Source: http://www.prw.com/subscriber/newsmail2.html?id=1267180929
A Welsh company, Affresol, has developed the technology to build affordable low carbon homes from recycled waste plastic and minerals – including packaging and manufacturing waste. Each house consists of approximately 18 tonnes of material that would otherwise be destined for landfill.
The first of the modular buildings has been ordered by Worcester Bosch, a UK manufacturer of domestic heating and hot water systems, for its plant in Warndon, Worcestershire. Supplying Affresol with plastic recovered from recycled boilers will enable the heating specialist to achieve a zero waste policy.
Affresol has developed a material called Thermo Poly Rock (TPR) from recycled plastics and minerals for use as a structural building product. The patented process uses a low energy cold process which converts the plastics into a strong structural element.
The TPR panels are bolted together to form the load bearing frame of the house, which can be externally clad using a material of choice (brick, block or stone), and the interior insulated and plastered as standard. The roof is tiled from recycled materials.
Outlining the benefits, managing director Ian McPherson said TPR is stronger and lighter than concrete, waterproof, fire retardant, does not rot and has excellent insulation properties.
A sustainable code 4/5 home built using TPR can be up to 12% cheaper than standard build, the TPR superstructure can be erected on site within four days. The houses have an estimated life cycle of more than 60 years and the TPR elements are 100% recyclable at the end of life.
The company has spent the last two years working with Cardiff and Glamorgan universities, the Building Research Establishment (BRE) and the Carbon Trust developing the product.
The Welsh Assembly Government also provided support through the Single Investment Fund in the test and development stage, setting up an automated production facility and in the final stages leading up to accreditation.
Finance Wales, a provider of commercial funding to businesses in Wales and a subsidiary company of the Assembly Government, has also provided debt investment in the business
McPherson said: “Our management team and business partners believe there is tremendous potential for this new product particularly with the growing focus on carbon reduction, low energy affordable homes and sustainability.”
Affresol forecast building 3,000 homes per annum – recycling 40,000 tonnes of waste – with the main market being affordable homes for social housing.
Source: http://www.prw.com/subscriber/newsmail2.html?id=1267180929
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Palm Oil, Sugar Cane Most Sustainable Energy Crops, Study Shows
By Rudy Ruitenberg
Feb. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Sugar cane grown in Brazil and palm oil from Malaysia and Indonesia rank as the most sustainable of the current generation of biofuel crops, according to researchers at Wageningen University in the Netherlands.
Researchers at the university’s plant-science department compared nine crops on criteria including soil erosion, water use for each unit of energy produced and nitrogen usage, according to Sander de Vries, author of the comparative study.
“In terms of net energy, sugar cane has the best score of all energy crops,” Wageningen University’s De Vries said by telephone yesterday. “A crop like corn, which scores poorly, is at 10 percent of that.”
Biofuels production amounted to 83 billion liters (21.9 billion U.S. gallons) in 2008, up fourfold from 2000, and accounted for 1.5 percent of global transport fuel consumption, according to the International Energy Agency. First-generation biofuels have faced “heavy criticism” regarding their long- term effect on the environment, according to the IEA.
Sorghum in China, as well as oil palms and sugar cane, make the most efficient use of land, water, nitrogen and pesticides to produce a unit of energy, according to the study in the journal Biomass and Bioenergy. Provided no forest is cleared to grow the three crops, they produce “much less” greenhouse gases than fossil fuels, the study said.
“It takes a lot of water to grow sugar cane, but on balance you get a big return,” De Vries said. “You get back a lot of sugar cane.”
Nine Criteria
The crops were compared by ranking them against the best- performing plant on each of nine criteria, De Vries said. Sugar beet and rapeseed in Europe, cassava in Thailand and soybeans in Brazil had an average ranking, according to the study.
“In every case we looked at the dominant production area,” De Vries said. “With regards to erosion, oil palm scores well, rapeseed also. Soy doesn’t do well in terms of net energy, but does in nitrogen efficiency.”
Oil palm was most sustainable with regards to the maintenance of soil quality, according to the study, which disregarded effects on societies, economies and biodiversity.
U.S. corn and wheat in Europe, used to produce ethanol, had the worst sustainability score of the nine crops studied.
“It takes a lot of energy to process those crops,” De Vries said. “For corn it’s just positive. For wheat the balance of greenhouse-gas reductions is zero.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Rudy Ruitenberg in Paris at rruitenberg@bloomberg.net
Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&sid=atgC7em.HRHg
Feb. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Sugar cane grown in Brazil and palm oil from Malaysia and Indonesia rank as the most sustainable of the current generation of biofuel crops, according to researchers at Wageningen University in the Netherlands.
Researchers at the university’s plant-science department compared nine crops on criteria including soil erosion, water use for each unit of energy produced and nitrogen usage, according to Sander de Vries, author of the comparative study.
“In terms of net energy, sugar cane has the best score of all energy crops,” Wageningen University’s De Vries said by telephone yesterday. “A crop like corn, which scores poorly, is at 10 percent of that.”
Biofuels production amounted to 83 billion liters (21.9 billion U.S. gallons) in 2008, up fourfold from 2000, and accounted for 1.5 percent of global transport fuel consumption, according to the International Energy Agency. First-generation biofuels have faced “heavy criticism” regarding their long- term effect on the environment, according to the IEA.
Sorghum in China, as well as oil palms and sugar cane, make the most efficient use of land, water, nitrogen and pesticides to produce a unit of energy, according to the study in the journal Biomass and Bioenergy. Provided no forest is cleared to grow the three crops, they produce “much less” greenhouse gases than fossil fuels, the study said.
“It takes a lot of water to grow sugar cane, but on balance you get a big return,” De Vries said. “You get back a lot of sugar cane.”
Nine Criteria
The crops were compared by ranking them against the best- performing plant on each of nine criteria, De Vries said. Sugar beet and rapeseed in Europe, cassava in Thailand and soybeans in Brazil had an average ranking, according to the study.
“In every case we looked at the dominant production area,” De Vries said. “With regards to erosion, oil palm scores well, rapeseed also. Soy doesn’t do well in terms of net energy, but does in nitrogen efficiency.”
Oil palm was most sustainable with regards to the maintenance of soil quality, according to the study, which disregarded effects on societies, economies and biodiversity.
U.S. corn and wheat in Europe, used to produce ethanol, had the worst sustainability score of the nine crops studied.
“It takes a lot of energy to process those crops,” De Vries said. “For corn it’s just positive. For wheat the balance of greenhouse-gas reductions is zero.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Rudy Ruitenberg in Paris at rruitenberg@bloomberg.net
Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&sid=atgC7em.HRHg
Baja Fresh launches 'Earth Fresh' initiative
Baja Fresh Mexican Grill has announced its 2010 "Earth Fresh" initiative. Beginning in December of 2009, Baja Fresh introduced recycled napkins, paper bags, burrito wrapping paper, and biodegradable plates in eight restaurants, including their California locations in Cypress, Westlake Village, Simi Valley, Beverly Hills, Tustin Marketplace, South Irvine and Lakewood.
All Baja Fresh paper bags in the aforementioned restaurants now contain a minimum of 40 percent postconsumer material. Papers utilized also are not made with processed chlorine or its derivatives, and converted papers are FDA compliant.
The new plates are designed to disintegrate and biodegrade swiftly and safely in a professionally managed composting facility. The plates are certified by the Biodegradable Products Institute and the natural fibers with which they are produced are a byproduct of wheat harvest. The type of renewable resource is reportedly an excellent alternative to polystyrene foam and conventional molded fiber.
Additionally, the production and use of natural, unbleached burrito wraps versus bleached paper wraps have significant impact on the world’s resources including:
* 46 percent reduction in waste water
* 21 percent reduction in wood pulp use
* 16 percent reduction in solid waste
* 10 percent reduction in green house gas production.
For every 1,000 tons of natural paper produced versus bleached paper of the same weight 6,089 trees will be saved, 15 full swimming pools of wastewater will be removed, and 13 garbage trucks of solid waste will be eliminated.
"Baja Fresh recognizes the importance of the earth’s resources and our customers’ penchant to conserve them. By offering our products in biodegradable, recycled, and recyclable packaging, not only are we meeting the requests of our guests, but also those of the environment," Baja Fresh president Charles Rink said. "We will continue to seek environmentally friendly solutions for additional products used in serving Baja Fresh menu items, and we look forward to the success of the current products in test. We hope to offer them companywide within the year."
Source: http://www.fastcasual.com/article.php?id=17327&na=1&s=2
All Baja Fresh paper bags in the aforementioned restaurants now contain a minimum of 40 percent postconsumer material. Papers utilized also are not made with processed chlorine or its derivatives, and converted papers are FDA compliant.
The new plates are designed to disintegrate and biodegrade swiftly and safely in a professionally managed composting facility. The plates are certified by the Biodegradable Products Institute and the natural fibers with which they are produced are a byproduct of wheat harvest. The type of renewable resource is reportedly an excellent alternative to polystyrene foam and conventional molded fiber.
Additionally, the production and use of natural, unbleached burrito wraps versus bleached paper wraps have significant impact on the world’s resources including:
* 46 percent reduction in waste water
* 21 percent reduction in wood pulp use
* 16 percent reduction in solid waste
* 10 percent reduction in green house gas production.
For every 1,000 tons of natural paper produced versus bleached paper of the same weight 6,089 trees will be saved, 15 full swimming pools of wastewater will be removed, and 13 garbage trucks of solid waste will be eliminated.
"Baja Fresh recognizes the importance of the earth’s resources and our customers’ penchant to conserve them. By offering our products in biodegradable, recycled, and recyclable packaging, not only are we meeting the requests of our guests, but also those of the environment," Baja Fresh president Charles Rink said. "We will continue to seek environmentally friendly solutions for additional products used in serving Baja Fresh menu items, and we look forward to the success of the current products in test. We hope to offer them companywide within the year."
Source: http://www.fastcasual.com/article.php?id=17327&na=1&s=2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)