Dornfeld, Chair Professor of Engineering in Mechanical Engineering at University of California-Berkely, discuss how "technology wedges" impacts our transition to greening the manufacturing environment.

His article, "Digging Deeper", was posted on March 4, 2010

The ongoing low hanging fruit discussion here was the preamble to the last posting about scratching the surface (or, as one of my grinding expert friends says … when it comes to abrasive process research we've only just scratched the surface! Sorry… engineering humor).

It is necessary to understand the magnitude of the challenge and where to best concentrate our efforts. And, sometimes the easiest stuff doesn't do much to advance the cause, specially with respect to greening manufacturing.

Last time I presented some perspectives on what it really means to be sustainable and this referred back to the earlier discussions about "technology wedges." An analysis of some of the potential wedges was presented from the Vattenfall report. Many of those technology wedges were related to manufacturing as noted.

One can find similar data on what kinds of reductions in CO2 emissions (in terms of parts per million in the atmosphere) are needed to get the atmospheric concentration of CO2 at a "sustainable" level. Again, I point out that not everyone agrees with the data and I am not promoting any specific interpretation. But (and a significant but) agencies, states, countries and regions are making regulations based on these discussions, consumers are making choices based on products and companies that respond to this data and companies are changing business plans and strategies based on this. So, in keeping with the "Everett and Jones" philosophy… we'd better be at least watching this carefully (and if you don't recall what this is – search Everett and Jones on this blog page!)  If you check the pages of Environmental Leader (link at bottom) on any day you see a growing list of reports of companies responding.

Ok…we've got the motivation. Now, what will really work.

Last July in this blog referred to a presentation in 2005 by Professor Julian Allwood of Cambridge University on "What is Sustainable Manufacturing" as a good place to start this discussion (see http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2009/08/dimensions-and-metrics-of-green.html for the blog and http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/sustainability/seminar/documents/050216lo.pdf for a download of Allwood's slides).

Allwood discusses in detail strategies for reducing the carbon footprint and other impacts of manufacturing. He specially discusses these with reference to targets for reduction set by governmental agencies in the UK and elsewhere. For example, the figure below shows the reduction targets set by the UK and EU to allow surface temperature stabilization. The target is a 60% absolute cut in yearly carbon emissions by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. What is seen is the slope of reductions (in CO2 equivalent)

needed to meet this ambitious goal (in blue), the actual reductions observed over the first few years (and reference to the Kyoto target, in red) and, gulp, these actual reductions adjusted to "off shore" effects. That is, moving the production and associated CO2 generation out of the region of calculation (i.e. out of the UK and EU) in orange. That curve is moving in the wrong direction.

This is not a pretty picture and emphasizes the complexity and difficulty of the task. Smoke and mirrors are not going to get this done.

Since consumption increases annually with additional production of products to meet growing demand fueled by, at least, growing populations (and compounded by increasing expectations of quality of life – recall the "impact equation" we discussed some postings ago on the drivers of impact including impact/GDP) we need to accommodate both reduction in per unit impact (CO2 here) as well as the increased production with demand. A double whammy.

Allwood puts some numbers on this. He summarizes data from an EU project on reducing CO2 in steel production. If demand for steel doubles then stablizes, and every efficiency known is perfectly implemented, the carbon target requires that two thirds of all steel is re-used without re-smelting, and the energy of all forming processes is halved.

Think about this (and keep in mind the Ricoh comet cycle; see http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2009/09/sustainability-angst.html). Two-thirds of all steel re-used without re-smelting! That cuts out a major part of the present strategy for recovery and recycling steel (and many other materials as well.) That means, effectively, if we are to meet this aggressive target (but the type of target many feel is absolutely needed and being discussed by other countries and regions in the world) we'll be taking the steel hood off of our Chevy and re-assembling it onto another with little additional processing! That is, we have to be able to facilitate the loops closest to the consumer to make this work.

Hopefully, this will spur research on and development of a whole host of imaginative re-processing technologies that can cut out the "dirty" part of recycling.

We'll look at some ideas about this next time.

Finally, Professor Allwood has just written a paper to be published in  Environmental Science and Technology Journal (ES&T) detailing some potential next steps. The article, titled "Options for Achieving a 50% cut in Industrial Carbon Emissions by 2050" introduces the idea of material efficiency with reduced primary production. We will delve into this more in the future.
 

The End of "Developing Countries"

By Yael Borofsky, Ted Nordhaus, and Michael Shellenberger

In 1992, at the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the nations of the world agreed that only developed "Annex I" countries — the U.S., Europe, Japan, etc — would have to reduce their emissions. Developing countries were too poor and weren't polluting enough to cause much warming anyway.

But fast forward to 2009 and the very idea of "developing countries" is falling apart.

Last week the tiny island nation of Tuvalu halted United Nations climate talks in Copenhagen after it demanded that China and other big developing nations also agree to emissions limits. Tuvalu pointed out that there is no possibility of keeping atmospheric carbon emissions below 450 parts per million, much less the more radical demand of 350 ppm, if Chinese emissions continue to rise at business-as-usual levels.

While most of the media coverage focused on the threat to island nations from climate change, and their radical demand of 350 ppm rather than the U.N. IPCC call for keeping concentrations at 450 ppm, the most significant aspect of the episode is that it marks the end of the idea that there is such a thing as the "developing world."

A Tale of Two Nations: Tuvalu's GDP is $15 million. China's GDP is $7.9 trillion. Why do we keep calling them both developing countries?

Tuvalu is the fourth smallest country in the world with 12,000 people — China is the largest with 1.3 billion. Tuvalu's GDP is $15 million (yes, million). China's is $7.9 trillion.

And China, as everyone now knows, is the world's largest emitter.

US delegation head Todd Stern has repeatedly said that the Kyoto framework is dead – the U.S. will not agree to binding limits if China, the world's largest polluter, does not also agree to limits. But the Tuvalu proposal signals that the developing world is no longer even ostensibly unified.

And yet China continues to demand that it be treated the same as tiny countries like Tuvalu. Under the UNFCCC framework China would not only not have to reduce its emissions, it would be eligible to receive investment aid and technology transfer from the developed world. The U.S., according to the UNFCCC, would be required to fund technology transfer to China.

It makes no sense anymore to assume that the flow of clean energy "technology transfer" will be from developed nations like the United States to developing countries like China. China is the world leader in low-carbon energy technologies. According to our recent report, "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," China will grow that lead by investing more than twice as much as the U.S. in technology and infrastructure. China is a leader in the domestic manufacturing capacity of solar, wind, and batteries for advanced vehicles and is actively nurturing the development of clean energy innovation clusters.

Rising Tiger: The UNFCC says developed nations like the United States should transfer technology to China, but China is already a leader in the global production of many clean energy technologies.

In fact, China now produces more solar PV, twice the amount of wind turbine components, more batteries for advanced vehicles, and more nuclear reactor components than the United States. In terms of solar PV manufacturing capacity alone, China has 1,800 MW while the U.S., in comparison, has just 375 MW.

Under the UNFCC framework, the U.S. would be required to underwrite China's clean technology industry — even while it is already importing Chinese clean energy technologies, such as wind turbines for a new farm in Texas, which provoked a protest from U.S. Senator Schumer last month.

What we are seeing is more than an end to an outmoded category — "developing countries" — and more than the death of the Kyoto protocol. We are watching a set of the fundamental assumptions that underpin the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change collapse under their own weight

Mark Hornbeck / Detroit News Lansing Bureau

Lansing — Five small manufacturing companies won $15.5 million in federal stimulus awards to help them move into making green energy systems and parts, Gov. Jennifer Granholm announced today.

The firms will diversify from making tanks, auto parts and boats to manufacturing solar shingles, wind turbines and windmills. The governor's office reported the grants will create or retain 713 jobs.

"These are existing businesses moving into revolutionary new areas," Granholm said, adding the state has invested $1 billion into the renewable and alternative energy sector.

The companies that won the grants were among 80 that submitted applications, said Stanley "Skip" Pruss, director of the Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth.

"Clean tech is a space Michigan fits very well in," Pruss said. "What you see here is the best in class."

Firms awarded grants include:

• Astraeus Wind Energy Inc. of Eaton Rapids will get $7 million to make wind turbine blades and hubs.

• Energetx Companies LLC of Holland was awarded $3.5 million to manufacture large composite wind turbines.

• Loc Performance Products Inc. of Plymouth won $1.5 million to make gears and gearboxes for utility windmills.

• LUMA Resources LLC of Rochester Hills will get $500,000 to manufacture shingles for the residential solar market.

• Merrill Technologies Group of Saginaw will receive $3 million to make large-scale wind turbine blades and other components

"Metal stamping, when applied to fuel cell applications, provides substantial cost advantages to ceramics and other conventional materials. In addition, metal is less fragile to work with than graphite or ceramics and is much more conducive to major production scale up."

Caran Precision will be attending the Fuel Cell seminar in California from November 17-19th.