With the autumn now fully upon us, some of the more minor environmental abominations of our time are dragged out of storage and put to dubious use once again. You know the sort of thing – patio heaters, and those utterly ridiculous contraptions driven by 50cc two-stroke engines that make a great deal of noise and simply blow fallen leaves from one pile to another.
I’m sorry if I’ve just alienated a whole chunk of our readers who actually design and build these things, but I believe such products demonstrate a barely disguised cynicism for eco-design and the whole concept of integrated product policy. But then, such criticism might equally be levelled at a host of other products, including SUVs and energy-inefficient lighting and domestic appliances, or unnecessarily wasteful industrial processes; it’s difficult to know where to stop.
The European Union’s stand on sustainable industrial policy, so far as it impacts upon product development, is predictably wordy but essentially clear:
“All stages of the life-cycle of a product need to be addressed, eg design, raw materials utilised, production processes, transport/distribution, use/consumption, and waste/disposal phase. For example, companies should take into consideration the use and waste phases when designing a product so as to minimise the overall environmental impact (including pollution). However, it is clear that environmental concerns cannot be regarded in isolation and must be integrated alongside other aspects of products such as performance, quality and safety.”
When designing eco-friendly products, how much attention should be given to the “pollution” part of “overall environmental impact”? For instance, an electric motor may involve several potentially environmentally unfriendly processes during its manufacture, but this pales into insignificance when the machine is finally put to work, and is not efficiently controlled over the lifetime of its duty. Readers might be jaundiced by continuing references in the pages of DPA to the benefits of inverter-controlled as opposed to fixed-speed motor installations, but the facts are truly compelling.
Leading motor manufacturer, ABB is evangelical when it comes to efficient motor control, and can offer some startling case histories from its own client portfolio to convince even the most sceptical among us. Moreover, the company has embraced the spirit of the EU’s integrated product policy on end-of-life recycling, even though variable speed drives do not come under the umbrella of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive. It has been recycling drives for five years, and in the first six months of 2008 collected some 10 tonnes of waste electronic drives products via its UK Alliance channel partner network.
That’s a good example of commitment at the business-to-business level; but what about the much wider business-to-consumer sector where, presumably, far greater environmental gains are to be made?
During a recent talk to students at the University of Huddersfield, Jonathan Sands, chairman of brand design consultancy, Elmwood, said that the biggest global trend right now was ‘anxiety’. Everyone’s worried about the economy, about the environment, food shortages and global warming, but anxiety shapes the way consumers consume, he said, and it’s something young designers really need to be aware of.
If you would like further insight into sustainable and eco-friendly design, I would recommend a couple of articles published in this month’s edition of DPA - Eco design: making it real and Sustainable design and the design process.
Les Hunt
Editor
While on the subject of the environment, a couple of readers provided responses to my recent item on low carbon transport
From Mr Rod Dalitz, engineer:
I have been following low-carbon fuel for some time. I was solidly in favour of hydrogen as an energy-transfer medium some time ago, on the basis that (given a convenient efficient means of storage and transport) hydrogen could be generated at times and places that work; for example, using equatorial sun, tide and wind, and off-peak nuclear.
Now, I doubt that hydrogen can be stored well. Hydrogen is so much easier to handle with a few carbon atoms to hold it in place. The new wave is algae generating hydrocarbons, which broadly allows the investment in cars, rail, and power stations, to remain in place.
The world is deeply committed to liquid fuel, but an alternative route to produce compatible fuel may be relatively easy to implement. I have read of two developments aiming to produce synthetic replacements for oil.
The most advanced is GreenFuel Techologies, founded by Isaac Berzin, who was honoured by Time Magazine in its list of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2008 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GreenFuel_Technologies_Corporation)
The Carbon Trust announced on 23 October the Algae Biofuels Challenge (see www.carbontrust.co.uk/News/presscentre/algae-biofuels-challenge.htm)
From Mr Nick Cook, technology analyst/electronics engineer:
I've just been reading your article ‘Low-carbon transport’. It was good to see some positive moves towards electric vehicles as these promise the highest efficiencies and hence lowest RE resource demands. However, the final paragraph also caught my attention, particularly the sentence: The special demonstration vehicle is designed to show that hydrogen as a fuel and its associated equipment are a practical and efficient proposition for a vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine, which might make many people think that hydrogen powered vehicles are a good idea.
My first point is that the main problem with most current transport systems is the ICE (internal combustion engine) rather than the choice of fuel. The first step to reducing GHG emissions in this area is more efficient transport which would be best served with a move away from the ICE to BEVs (battery electric powered vehicles) in the majority of scenarios. Secondly, there is no mention of economics; I doubt whether the infrastructure or operational costs for hydrogen transport will be anywhere near as low as electric, or even gasoline, without massive subsidies.
Hydrogen will not improve the basic efficiency of an ICE but creates a whole lot of new challenges, particularly with supply and distribution, which I believe are difficult to justify solely on the basis of zero tailpipe GHG emissions, especially when electrically powered transport can perform much better in the majority of applications, and its energy distribution system is fundamentally already in place.
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles hold the promise of better efficiency than those based on the ICE, but these still fall short of that achievable with BEVs. The main drawbacks of BEVs are currently moderate range, charging time and battery cost. Running costs are significantly lower than ICE vehicles, but all these parameters are moving in the right directions.
You may find the book "Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air" by Professor David MacKay an interesting read, it’s available free on line at http://www.WithoutHotAir.com
I extend my thanks to Mr Dalitz and Mr Cook for their insights into this subject.