So you know what you need to do to be green if you’re a student (http://sayiamgreen.com/blog/2010/11/energy-savings-at-school), but there is as much if not more that you can when you enter the workforce. Here are three easy to follow tips that can help you make your work place a more environmentally friendly place.
1. Use more video-conferencing: Until a few years ago the quality of video-conferencing was so far behind that it seemed better to have a telephone call rather than view the fuzzy picture. However, over the past two years video-conferencing has improved tremendously and you can now get HD quality video on these devices. The increased use of video-conferencing has several benefits: First, it saves you money – no more air plane tickets and hotel stays for out station staff meetings. Second, it saves you time – in the same day you can be on a video conference with teams from four different locations rather than spending time to actually travel to the locations. And finally, it’s better for the environment – all the savings from reduced travel can quickly add up to make a meaningful dent in your company’s carbon footprint.

2. Support reusable coffee mugs: We all do it – consume multiple cups of coffee over the work-day. In doing so, however, we often ending up using multiple styrofoam or paper cups and eventually this adds up to a lot of extra waste. A simple solution would be to get rid of these disposable cups in the coffee room and give all employees reusable cups. This simple switch not only will benefit the environment but will also help the company save money since the repeat order cost of disposable cups quickly add up to more than that for a reusable one. If that wasn’t enough incentive, you could always give the employees a nice reusable cup that’s designed to help keep the coffee warm – thus making it a win-win situation for everyone.

3. Encourage suppliers to take back packaging material: One of the biggest sources of waste in most offices is the packaging that comes with supplies. Whether it’s stationary, food supplies or even new furniture – it all comes with oodles of packaging that often just gets discarded. While recycling it yourself is definitely a step in the right direction the best use of it is for the supplier to reuse it for future orders. Often – simply asking the supplier if they will take it back works since for many suppliers this represents a cost-saving. Another example of this is making sure that used toner cartridges are returned to suppliers. In that case, not only do you help the environment but suppliers might also be willing to give you a financial incentive rebate.

Remember there is nothing too small in the path to helping the environment. What begins as a trickle soon turns into a downpour as an increasing number of people start to see the benefit of being green.

The need for innovation in the energy sector is clear, whether from the standpoint of environmental conservation or energy security—and the US government has made some progress in supporting it from a policy and funding standpoint. However, venture capital is currently the primary source of risk capital for greentech startups. As John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins put it, “The internet is a $1 trillion economy. Compare that with the energy business, a $6 trillion dollar economy.” Doerr and Kleiner Perkins have put their money where their mouth is, investing over $1B through their KPCB XIII and Green Growth funds. Still, Kleiner Perkins is mostly in the headlines right now for their $100M sale of ngcomo to Japan’s DeNA, as well as their recently-formed $250M “sFund” for social startups—rather than their investments in greentech. And the reality is that most of their peer VCs are investing elsewhere. Why isn’t more money flowing towards greentech?

The average Web 2.0 startup usually requires much smaller amounts of capital than the average greentech startup. With the spread of the “lean startup” model and cloud computing, many Web 2.0 startups can get rolling by simply bootstrapping or taking small angel or venture investments. Greentech companies, on the other hand, often have significant capital costs and take many years to get a product to market, develop profitability, and exit—making them much larger and riskier bets for investors. And for VCs in particular, devoting such a large part of their funds to a single investment (greentech or otherwise) can be far too risky. When comparing Web 2.0 and greentech startups in this fashion, it’s easy to understand why VCs find Web 2.0 startups more appealing from a portfolio standpoint.

However, many would characterize this as a tremendous missed opportunity—especially given the enormous, $6B market for energy as well as the potential for truly disruptive innovation. Dedicated funds such as Kleiner Perkins’ $500M Green Growth fund and Khosla Ventures’ $750M fund are setting a good example by placing big, early bets—hopefully other VC firms will follow suit and begin to allocate more of their investment dollars to greentech.

mmfleurdenuit

So you’re already running late for classes and overwhelmed with homework? You’re meeting new people and plugging back into your school’s gossip network? Well – welcome back to school! As you enter the new academic year don’t forget some easy steps you can take to make your environment a better, greener place for all.
1. Print efficiently: It would be great to minimize printing completely but even if you can’t do that there are three things you can do to minimize the impact on the environment. First, always use duplex printing – in fact make it the default setting on your printer so that you don’t have to think twice about it. Second, if you’re printing something that doesn’t need to be handed in – grab some used paper lying around and print on the other side. Third, start using recycled paper yourself and petition your school’s computer lab to start doing the same. It costs just a little more than regular paper but is significantly better for the environment.

2. Unplug appliances: We all do it – leave appliances that aren’t being used plugged into outlets. But, what most of us don’t know is that these appliances even when in a turned off state actually consume electricity – aptly called vampire power. Power consumption on some devices can be as high as 10 to 15 watts and recent studies have estimated that this adds up to between 5-10% of your total household electricity consumption. The good news is that you don’t need to chew garlic to fight this vampire – simply unplug them when not in use to not only help the environment but also save with lower electricity bills.

3. Use CFL lamps: While the US government is mandating for this to happen by 2014, there is no reason you shouldn’t get a head start. It takes less than five minutes, but switching from regular incandescent lamps to compact florescent lamps (CFL’s) will not only benefit the environment but also save you money. In fact, CFL’s use 20-33% of the power of equivalent incandescent lamps and have a rated life of 8-15x longer. And while the cost of a CFL is higher than that of an incandescent lamp, the lower energy usage means that a household that spends around $100 to switch 30 fixtures to CFL’s could save almost $1000 in electricity bills over the five year life of the bulbs. So track down the incandescent lights and start saving!

Google’s October 12th announcement that it will be investing in the Atlantic Wind Connection, an underwater “superhighway for clean energy” off the U.S. Atlantic Coast, raised a lot of eyebrows—and fears of Google’s quest for world domination.

While I can’t ignore that the extent of Google’s control over all of our lives is astounding, I also can’t deny that Google’s decision to enter this arena in such a bold, logical and strategic fashion is a fascinating development for the wind industry and the renewable sector.

Ask any opponent of wind power and you will receive a myriad of objections. At the top of the list you are likely to find 1) wind’s inability to make a significant contribution to the energy supply; 2a) wind’s unreliability and intermittent nature and 2b) the fact that wind energy is produced and demanded in different locations; 3) the potential problems that can be associated with wind farms built in residential areas, including shadow flicker, noise, vibration and “unpleasant” aesthetics; and 4) wind’s possibly harmful effect on wildlife and birds and bats, in particular.

What makes this announcement so intriguing is that Google’s proposed project could legitimately avoid, or at minimum, make progress in dealing with, all of these issues.

First, although the project is in its early stages, if all goes according to plan, the Atlantic Wind Connection could make a serious contribution to our energy supply. According to one of Google’s partners in the project, Good Energies, if the superhighway gets built, it would have a generation capacity equivalent to that of six nuclear power plants, or enough power to supply two million homes. Opponents will be hard-pressed to suggest that this is insignificant.

Second and third, the transmission system would help deal with the uncertainty of the wind supply, current lack of transmission capacity and the issues associated with the geographical mismatch of supply and demand.

By its very nature, wind production is fickle. However, the superhighway would allow energy produced in one zone of the transmission system (where wind gusts are high) to be delivered to another area (where wind speeds are at a low ebb.) As the Washington Post writes on October 13th: “The transmission line would address the problem of wind’s intermittent supply by tapping into a much broader swath of the coast to meet consumer demand.”

Additionally, wind energy supply is often located prohibitively far from the locus of greatest demand. For example, most wind energy tends to be produced in the windy Midwest states, but demanded on the coasts, and the current infrastructure can’t get it where it needs to be. The superhighway would help to correct this imbalance, reduce congestion and equalize supply and demand along the East Coast. According to an October 12th New York Times article: “Even before any wind farms were built, the cable would channel existing supplies of electricity from southern Virginia, where it is cheap, to northern New Jersey, where it is costly, bypassing one of the most congested parts of the North American electric grid.”

Third, offshore wind farms off the Atlantic Coast will evade most, if not all, of the classic “NIMBY” objections. Probably the most difficult challenge that developers of energy plants will encounter is the “Not In My Backyard” phenomenon, and wind farms are no exception. Driven by fears that the farms will affect their quality of life and property values via shadow flicker, noise, vibration and aesthetically unpleasing views, neighbors of proposed wind farms will picket zoning hearings, create bad PR, commence lawsuits, and pull out all the stops to halt approval and construction.

The logic of the location of the Atlantic Wind Connection is that the Atlantic Coast is shallow enough to allow wind farms to be built 15-20 miles offshore, rendering shadow flicker, noise and vibration non-issues. This distance is also expected to be far enough from the coast to take advantage of the highest wind speeds while minimizing or even eliminating visibility from onshore. Given the battle that the Cape Wind project has waged for ten years, low- or non-visibility is key to moving the U.S. offshore industry forward.

Fourth, although extensive studies are requisite, the project’s considerable distance from shore and coordinated planning is expected to minimize environmental impacts. Robert Mitchell, CEO of Trans-Elect, another Google partner in the project, explains in an October 12th Christian Science Monitor article that “because the wind generation would be further out to sea, it is less likely to have an impact on bird migration and sea-mammal migration since birds tend to follow closer to shore.” Mitchell also points to the fact that the coordinated effort is “so much better than each of the wind generators building their own transmission lines all over the seabed.” While we have to take the developer’s opinion with a grain of salt, environmental advocates seem to agree that if the proper studies are undertaken and siting is carried out in accordance with the results of the studies, the project could avoid causing adverse effects to wildlife. In the same article, Mike Daulton, VP for governmental relations for the Audubon Society, offered a cautious show of support: “The three keys to siting the wind farms are location, location, location. As long as there is proper siting, this is a promising development.”

Finally, Google’s proposal also could clear some major roadblocks on the developer/investor side of the fledgling offshore industry. Up until now, the lack of transmission infrastructure and prohibitively high costs and risks of offshore development have stunted the industry’s growth. Investment in the energy superhighway could change this risk and return profile. The New York Times article notes that “the line will eliminate the need for offshore wind developers to build their own individual transmission lines, which could spur construction of those wind farms and lower costs by 17% to 20%.”

Of course, numerous challenges and roadblocks remain. Offshore is costly. Environmental impact studies have to be completed. The number of regulatory approvals that will be required is daunting. Other problems and concerns will surely arise.

But say what you will about Google, they have an irrefutable track record of catalyzing change. I’m excited to see what happens.

Source: americaspower

Venture investors in Silicon Valley have jumped feet-first into the cleantech sector in the past several years.  There is a long list of investors in the Bay Area that have turned their attention to the sector – some investors (like Khosla and Braemar) have placed huge bets in the space, while others have reserved smaller portions of their portfolios for early-stage cleantech investing.  Cleantech remains a hotly watched topic as companies in this sector start to post early exits (largely in the form of IPOs).  Though the early exits have finally started to happen, some still argue that the sector remains unproven.
 
Through the third quarter of 2010, total venture investment in cleantech ($5.73B) is already ahead of the 2009 full-year investment dollar total ($5.69B).  Investments in cleantech in 2010 encompass a broad variety of industries, including electrical efficiency, batteries, building materials, plastics and chemicals, cellulosic alcohol, mechanical efficiency… the list goes on and on.  According to Cleantech Group, in the third quarter of this year venture investors put money into a total of 152 cleantech deals.  The leading sectors of investment included transportation ($208M), biofuels ($186M), and smart grid ($163M).  Though not the highest by dollar value, energy efficiency was the leading sector by number of deals and accounted for 24 VC funding rounds in the last quarter alone.
 
To give you an idea of the types of companies that have received venture capital funding in late 2010, here are a few: SolarCity Corporation is a full-service solar provider for homeowners, businesses and government organizations and offers services like solar power system design, financing, installation and monitoring services.  Solazyme is a renewable oil and bioproducts company that produces clean fuels, chemicals, foods and health sciences products.  LUMEnergi is a lighting and energy management company that creates strategies for companies to reduce energy spend on lighting.

 Those are just a few of the many recently funded sectors and companies in cleantech VC!  Stay tuned for another posting soon on what the future holds for cleantech VC…

Anonymous

Source: meridian-audio.com

I haven’t written as many “green” articles as I would like and the reason is my area of expertise is custom AV (Audio Visual). Custom AV hasn’t jumped on the green wagon quite as quickly as other industries but I’m hopeful this is about to change.

http://bit.ly/aZ6oMr

Meridian audio, (http://bit.ly/aZ6oMr), for the vast majority of you who have never heard of the company, builds audio video products that are what most would consider Bentley or Ferrari level. The press release focuses more on the performance, but the message is starting to come through- You can have luxury level performance and be green. Just be creative. The press release is old for a press release in the digital age, but only recently has it started to gain traction amongst the AV industry. People are impressed that such an ambitious system is totally ‘off the grid’ as it should be. I’ve seen some pretty cool things in the industry and this would be a complicated project even if there was no green power solution. Adding solar to take the entire load really is an impressive feat and the dealer should be commended for such an undertaking.

I’ve seen other attempts to green up home entertainment and some work better than others and all should be commended for the advance of green entertainment but this is a feat similar to that of the Tesla Roadster: uncompromising performance, at a price not for everyone; a statement of what is possible should people really want to pursue state of the art entertainment. I know that if I could do it this way, I would.

Well done Audio-High, more people should pursue green like this. When state of the art trickles down, we all win.

Myth #1: Turning lights on and off can use more energy than simply leaving them on. The Truth: Both incandescent lights and fluorescent lights should be turned off whenever they are not in use. Incandescent lights are an obvious case. Due to their inefficiency, turning off these lights is always the best way to conserve energy. Fluorescent bulbs do require a little more energy to get started when they are turned on. However, this is still quite small compared to the energy they emit when lit. In fact, unless a fluorescent bulb is turned on and off within 5 seconds, it is still worthwhile to turn off the lights when they are not in use.

Myth #2: You can save energy by washing your dishes by hand instead of using a dish-washing machine The Truth: Washing dishes by hand uses more hot water than washing dishes using a machine. You can save even more energy by not pre-rinsing your dishes at the sink. This practice does not make your dishes any cleaner and wastes both water and energy.

Myth #3: Turning off appliances when they are not in use is the best way to conserve energy Fact: Many appliances continue to draw power even when they are turned off. This “vampire energy” can be a major source of energy consumption. In fact, vampire energy costs U.S. consumers up to $3 billion per year. Among the worst offenders are plasma televisions, video game consoles, and computers.

Myth #4: Blackle, Google’s custom search engine, genereates significant energy savings by displaying Google with a black background Fact: Blackle clearly saves energy for those using Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) monitors. However, the savings are less clear for LCD monitors, and in some cases may even use more energy than the original Google. Typically, LCD monitors larger than 24 inches use slightly less power with Blackle. However, LCD monitors smaller than 22 inches actually use more energy on average with Blackle.

Myth #5: You can save energy by lighting a room by candlelight and turning off the electric lights Fact: This myth was widely circulated during Earth Hour this past March. In fact, candles also emit carbon dioxide. So whether your candles are more eco-friendly than your light bulbs depends on what type of bulb you’re using and the mix of energy sources used by your utility. In general, candles are always more efficient than incandescent bulbs. But if you use compact fluorescent (CFL) bulbs, it depends on what part of the country you live in. Roughly speaking, if you live in the Midwest, the Great Plains states or in Texas, switching to candles is a good way to go green. But if you live on the coasts, you may be doing more harm than good next Earth Hour if you eat by candlelight.

By J.D’Abbraccio

The “Green” movement in hospitals has taken finally taken momentum in the United States. More and more hospitals are starting to understand the long term impact of going green. Why is that important? Did you know that the U.S. health care sector accounts for almost one tenth of the country’s carbon-dioxide emissions? A report by University of Chicago researchers published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) showed that the health care sector accounted for 16% of U.S. gross domestic product. What was most disturbing was that health care contributed to 8 percent of the United States’ total carbon-dioxide output. The analysis found that hospitals were by far the largest contributor of carbon emission. The researchers attributed this to the high energy demands needed for temperature control, ventilation and lighting in large hospital buildings.

What does it mean to for a hospital to be “Green?”  It means a hospital is trying to be environmentally friendly and proactive about leaving a smaller carbon footprint on the planet. It means they are more efficient with energy by utilizing green technology, such as smart efficient heating and cooling systems, high-efficiency glass, solar panels, LED lights, digital thermostats, low-flow faucets, automatic on/off light switches, recycled products and material to name a few. Also, hospitals are focusing their attention on new ways to be more inventive with waste management and recycling. What kind of impact does a green hospital have on its patients?  Green health care design does promote a more healing environment through more natural daylight, outdoor views, landscaping, improved ventilation, better indoor air quality, efficient lighting, low-impact materials and furnishings, and a more relaxed atmosphere.

Why now? Many health care organizations are starting to really understand the long term financial impact of going green. Besides the numerous environmental and health benefits, the combination of affordable new green products, green grants and tax credits, and potential for huge financial savings are really driving this change. Companies like AMSOLAR (www.amsolarcorp.com ) work on innovative models for educational and medical institutions thinking of best practices and solutions on how to maximize investments made by hospitals who decide to go green. Hospitals can spend millions of dollars monthly just for energy. Why wouldn’t a hospital want to save millions by being more efficient? Hospitals are analyzing up-front costs of green technology and are determining that is will usually balance out against long-term savings. Going green may save millions of dollars over the years. Also, the competition for attracting patients plays a big role too. Many patients are looking for clean, efficient, and up to date rooms while recovering from illness. Being green gives the public an enhanced perception that a health care provider is environmental sensitive and cares about the community.

More and more hospitals are going green. It seems like the green message to save the planet is becoming clearer and clearer everyday. Reduce waste and your carbon footprints wherever you can. As a potential patient/customer, will the green movement affect where you will go for your healthcare? Do you think this will improve the quality of care being delivered? Have you been in a “green” hospital? If so, please share your experience and thoughts.

ECL

Green is all the rage these days. Get a hybrid car, recycle, don’t waste water.  Make your home more energy-efficient, install solar panels, ride a bike.  Companies are selling products with less packaging, publishing annual reports on sustainability, and working to “green” their value chain.  We hear “save the rainforest”, “protect the sea turtles”, and “pack it in, pack it out“ when you’re hiking. 

“Green” has become undeniably woven into our daily lives, work, and volunteer and leisure time, as well as our financial donations.  But what about when we travel?  We don’t hear a lot about how to be a better, greener tourist.  The ways in which you can be smarter, more eco-friendly tourist aren’t necessarily novel and many are based off of what we consciously do in our daily routines—but it’s easy to forget about them when you travel. I would argue that being a “green” tourist may actually be too narrow, and that that aiming to be a sustainable tourist would offer a better way to maintain (or improve!) the destination environment, culture, and economy.  Here are a few tips worth considering before or during each of your adventures:

• Water bottles. Think about how much water you drink when you’re traveling. Now ask yourself how many plastic water bottles do you buy, guzzle, and promptly throw away? I bet the answer is “a lot”. So how about just taking a Nalgene or Sigg water bottle with you—or refill the plastic bottle you bought when you get to your destination. Easy peasey, you just saved a lot of plastic.   But, you might be concerned with whether the country’s water is potable – a very valid point! Here are two different solutions I have found to be very useful, user-friendly, and relieve my worries. The first one is a water bottle with a carbon filter IN it. You squeeze the water bottle, the water is forced through the filter, and voila, it’s purified and squirting into your mouth:  http://shop.katadyn.com/products/155186/Ultralight_Series_Products. The second one is a UV purifier which plops onto the top of your wide-mouthed Nalgene bottle, making the water safe and potable in under a minute: http://www.steripen.com/travel/products.html.  I found them to both be well worth their cost, as much for peace of mind as for being environmentally responsible. Try one out!

• Learn what NOT to buy. Now this suggestion may seem bizarre, but think about what happens when a resource or material is scarce, like ivory.  Yes, I agree that in many countries the selling of ivory is outlawed, but many destinations have materials which are not—and even if they are illegal, a black market exists. The rare resource normally commands a higher price from tourists– and concurrently destroys both the animals and the ecosystem (in often irreparable ways).  Store owners can be very easily motivated by money and high margins at the expense of preserving the world around them.  If you travel to the Galapagos Islands, for instance, your guides will ask you to please not buy anything made out of black coral bones: “If there are no buyers, they’ll stop selling it.”  Don’t wait to be told what not to buy: ask. Find out what natural resources or materials you should avoid buying when you travel and you will be greener, more sustainable tourist.  You can make an impact and help to neutralize this eco-unfriendly process.

• Don’t use camera flashes on animals in their natural habitat. This has dual sustainability upsides.  First, research shows that camera flashes can actually change the behavior of animals*.  If you can avoid flashes, you’re leaving less of an impact on the animals themselves. This by definition will make you a more sustainable tourist.  Second, the side bonus: your camera battery will last longer and you’ll need to charge it less frequently. If you’re concerned that the animal is moving quickly and that you “need” a flash, you could put your camera on “sport mode”.  Or, if you think it’s too dark, you can probably (even on point-and-shoot cameras these days) adjust the ISO up to 800 or higher.  If you don’t know how to do this, find someone schlepping around a big camera with an expensive lens and ask – they’ll likely be knowledgeable, happy to help, and give you additional tips for the lighting.  Either way you look at it, not flashing the animals will reduce your effects on the eco-system as well as prolong your battery life: a win-win for the environment and you, the sustainable tourist.  

 While there are a million little “green” travel tips that could be thrown your way, don’t get overwhelmed with them all.  Start with the three quick-win easy ones above:  carry your own water bottle, buy responsibly, and take pictures without flash. You got it now. You can do it—it’ll make a difference and you’ll feel good about it.

 Happy green and sustainable traveling!

By: Jessica