Greetings and welcome to issue #27 of Valutus SustainabilityR.O.I., a Recap of things that caught our attention along with some Observations and Intelligence.
This edition carries the usual mix of alarm bells and solutions that characterizes modern-day environmentalism. We rush forward to roll out innovation, then backwards frantically to patch a hole in the dam.
To all of you who suit up for this exercise, day in and day out, warm regards and thanks for your part in making the world a better place.
Daniel Aronson,
Founder, Valutus
The Value of Values
Margaret Hamilton as The Wicked Witch of the West from The Wizard of Oz (1939).
You’re skipping down a beautiful yellow-brick lane, singing about rainbows and hangin’ with the Lollypop Guild when, suddenly, a blinding flash shows you’re in a hoary old forest full of green witches, gouts of fire, and flying monkeys. Hey, it sounds a bit like 2020.
The Emerald City of Oz
Hold onto those slippers, though, so you can click three times and wake up in a warm bed knowing it was all just a nightmare. But waking up in Kansas won’t help much this time: they’ve got COVID-19, election madness, a tough economy, and warming farmlands. But it is the perfect place to begin a hot-air balloon trip to the place that is believed to have the cleanest air remaining on Earth: the Southern Ocean, and we have that story, too.
Photo by Piro4D / Pixabay
Wait... ballooning over frigid Arctic waters? That’s scary! While we can’t give you courage – or a medal – we do have one thing you haven’t got: a way to drastically increase our solar footprint by plastering all the skyscrapers in Oz with Building Integrated Photovoltaic materials (BIPV).
Sequined red 'ruby' slippers worn during filming of The Wizard of Oz (1939).
Smithsonian collection. By APK. Source: Wikimedia Commons
After that scare, a lie-down in a gentle poppy field sounds wonderful, but no such luck. That shining City’s a long, long way off and – though your feet are killing you from walking in ruby slippers a size too small – you’ve got to push on to the Emerald City. We suggest changing into something a little more comfortable – and sustainable. How about some flip-flops instead, made of injection-molded foam from emerald-green freshwater algae? We have that story for you.
As for Dorothy, she’s hoping Oz will hire her as its first female CEO. We can’t promise to make that happen, but we do have one thing she hasn’t got: a tool that helps organizations measure exactly where they stand with gender equity. Observations details how our Rating Index of Success and Equality (RISE) for Gender Equity will index your overall score and also point out specifically where the blockages are so they can be managed.
Interior of the eyewall of Hurricane Laura, Aug 26, 2020. Photo by Lt. Josh Rannenberg,
NOAA Corps from NOAA WP-3D Orion N42RF Kermit. Source: NOAA
Oh yes, while this is about hurricanes rather than tornadoes per se, we have a brief but compelling update on our cyclone story from last issue. Hurricane season is upon us and a record number of tropical depressions powerful enough to be named have already prowled the Atlantic this year, with three months still to go in the season, and we have that update. The merry old land of Oz may need to batten down the hatches and the witch needs to fix that hole in her roof.
Ray Bolger as The Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz (1939). Source: Wikipedia
Speaking of tornados, Winged Monkeys, and other risks, in an Intelligence that might make the Scarecrow proud, we demystify risk planning. This includes what we call submerged risk: dangers lurking out of sight of even the best quality crystal ball. And, while we can’t provide you with one of those, we do have one thing you haven’t got: a Risk tool that makes assessing risk as easy as oiling a Tin Man. You never know when a cyclone might pick a house up and drop it on you, ruby slippers or no, but you can assess your vulnerabilities, and prepare for threats.
Promotional Photo from The Wizard of Oz (1939). Source: Wikipedia
This has been a tough year, no doubt, and we’re a long way from Oz. All we can do is find that road of yellow bricks, link arms with our friends, and keep going.
It was the best of air, it was the worst of air: A tale of two expeditions.
Before you ask what the Dickens we’re talking about, allow us to explain.
There is general belief that there’s nowhere on Earth where plastics do not appear. From huge nylon fishing nets to microplastics infesting soil and water, the stuff is now – and for a very long time to come – a permanent part of the planet’s makeup. “There’s no nook or cranny on the surface of the earth that won’t have microplastics,” noted one scientist in The New York Times.[1]
But that may not be strictly true. As we’ll see below, there appears to be one area left which is largely free of airborne plastic. Hint: it’s cold! To live there, you need a boat and some very warm microfiber gloves; polyester scarves, hats and overalls; nylon boot-liners, sleeping bags, tents and jackets; acrylic socks, and goodness knows what else made from plastic.
Microplastics on a U.S. National Park beach, from a survey by the NOAA Marine Debris program,
the National Parks Service, and Clemson University. The black dotted lines are the grid lines on the
filter paper, the blue arrow points to the microplastic, and the black line at the bottom right equals 0.5 mm."
Source: NOAA. Photo by the National Parks Service
And therein lies the problem: the majority of plastic particulate in the air is coming, we’re told, from microfiber textiles. According to research, up to 70% of the particulate blowing in the wind and falling with the rain, “are synthetic microfibers used for making clothing.”[2]
A portion of these little guys – 60 million tons of microfiber textiles are manufactured annually[3] – are shed in the house or in the air. They come off in laundry equipment, get teased into the drain, and from thence to the water supply, or to dry out somewhere only to be picked up by the wind and blown around the globe. Well, around most of it.
This is something recycling programs, trash-trawling ships, beach pickups, and river barriers can’t manage: if the very air is infested with micro- and nano-plastics on a scale previously not known, how do we keep our unblemished places that way?
Well, we generally can’t, as a new study reported in Science[4] involving “high-resolution spatial and temporal data” that quantified plastics in the environment, makes clear. They measured how prevalent airborne plastics are by counting them in some of our most pristine – or so we believed – locations: national parks.
The particles found in several parks in the Western United States got there through “long-range global transport,” known as wind entrainment, just like the sands and dust deposited thousands of miles away from their deserts of origin by sandstorms.[5]
Several hundred 1mm – 5mm particles of a photodegraded plastic bag in the Arizona desert.
Photo by Steve Jewett, August 2, 2019. Photo source: Wikipedia
The sheer volume is somewhat shocking: the researchers documented plastic particulate falling at a rate of 132 particles per square meter per day, which amounts to more than a thousand metric tonnes of plastic every single year just in U.S. Western national parks. When we consider that microplastics are defined as <5mm in length while nano-plastics – whose size parameters are still under discussion – are microscopic,[6] a thousand tonnes is a truly incredible volume.
A similar study high in the Pyrenees range in France found an even greater level of “365 microplastic particles per square meter” every day,[7] almost three times as much as was found in U.S. national parks.
With characteristic dry understatement the researchers noted, “These findings should underline the importance of reducing pollution from such materials.”
Well, yes, they should.
Even so, polyester production – which generates a majority of microplastic in the environment – has been averaging about 5% growth annually for almost 20 years and, other than 2020,[8] is expected to continue strong growth.[9],[10]
When combined with nylon and other micro-fiber-generating man-made fibers (MMFs) an overwhelming number of plastic particles – well into the trillions – are showing up in the environment. These fibers are everywhere.
Or are they? Here’s the Dickensian part.
As noted above, there does appear to be at least one place remaining on Earth – and slightly above it – where mankind’s detritus has not yet trespassed.
Unlike the intrepid researchers in the Western U.S., a team from Colorado State University combed the peplosphere – the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) rising from the surface to a flexible point some meters above it – in a hunt for the cleanest remaining air available on the planet.
The Pyranees. Photo by Damien DuFour Photographie / Unsplash
They surveyed the area between 42.8 to 66.5°S latitude[11] – in the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica and found that it was “truly pristine, free from continental and anthropogenic influences.”[12]
The lower atmosphere, as it happens, is a vast biosphere in which bioaerosols –bacteria – whipped up from land or ocean surface – are often whisked vast distances around the globe. In most areas, such organisms would often be visitors from elsewhere. In this case however, the studied region of the peplosphere was filled with local marine bacteria but was remarkably free of wind-entrained organisms from other places. In other words, you just can’t get here from there.
The researchers concluded that airborne micro- and nano-plastics, and other anthropogenic pollutants, haven’t invaded the Southern Ocean so far due to “limited meridional airborne transport” – a high-flown[13] way of saying that winds from more northerly latitudes don’t blow in that direction.
The Southern ‘Antarctic’ Ocean. Photo by Long Ma / Unsplash
In other words, the lack of foreign bacteria suggested that “aerosols from … human activities, such as pollution or soil emissions… were not traveling south into Antarctic air.[14]
So, the good news is, there is still someplace on Earth where microscopic plastics have not yet done their damage; but it’s only because few people dressed in microplastics go there to do laundry.
To date, as this issue is only recently understood, solutions to this crisis are still in the ‘working group’ stage. Proposals for better laundry filtration systems, for garment labelling intended to spur consumers to handwash their microfiber textiles, and for ‘recommendations’ to industry are starting up. Few, if any, are taking aim at the source of all the mischief: microfiber textile manufacturers themselves.
This is by no means an academic exercise. Consider the volume of airborne fibers falling on the Pyrenees, on Yellowstone, and Yosemite and in places where we all live. Consider that, as we wrote in an earlier issue,[15] particulate this small can actually be inhaled and science now shows that, once inside the lungs or the gut, it can live on in human tissues.
Consider too, that these fibers – designed for clothing, upholstery, bedding and carpeting – have often been soaked in fire retardants, colorants, anti-stain chemicals and the like,[16],[17] many of which are toxic if ingested or inhaled.[18]
Moreover, nano-plastics in particular are so small that such particles “ingested by aquatic organisms passed through cell walls. This appeared to change behavior and affected endocrine function of fish and other marine species. Lab experiments have also shown nanoplastics cross cell walls in samples of human intestines.”[19]
To our scientists’ point, these findings should indeed underline the importance of reducing pollution from such materials.
It seems reasonable at first glance to simply bag the whole thing, shut down this useful and lucrative industry, and go back to all-natural fibers. But these textiles are incredibly useful across a broad range of applications and industries, and are less expensive and more durable than their natural alternatives, and are so ubiquitous as to make a transition incredibly difficult.
Dryer lint composed, in part, of plastic microfibers. Photo by: BD2412.
Source: Wikimedia Commons
For now, therefore, mitigation is centering on two key areas: better filtration downstream at the laundry-room and water-reclamation levels; and possibly creating microfibers that simply don’t shed. Given that there are an estimated 1.4 million trillion[20] such fibers in the ocean today, maybe we should get started on the latter?
If the industry could come up with fibers as durable, as versatile, and as inexpensive yet do not shed, it would be a far, far better thing[21] than they have ever done… so far.
Algae and the Flip Flop Footprint
Algae at the Jacksonville Zoo and Gardens, Florida, USA. Photo by Nitish Ranjan / Unsplash
In an election year, having the phrase ‘flip flop’ applied to you is never welcome. But some now embrace being called flip-floppers, because these beach-friendly, open-toed sandals can now be found made from innovative biomaterials rather than the modern standard: plastics and polyurethane foam. Of the new innovations, perhaps the most intriguing are those made from freshwater algae.
Flat-soled sandals with a thong passing between toes are by no means new – specimens date back to the pyramid-building Egyptians, the Parthenon-building Greeks, the Taj Mahal-building Indians, the Coliseum-building Romans, even the Hanging-Garden-tending Babylonians. Modern versions have one very new, and very odious, feature: the vast majority are mass-produced from the aforementioned long-lived, toxic-chemical-laden[1] plastic polymer known as polyurethane.[2]
Conventional plastic flip-flops on a rack. Photo by Betsy. Source: Wikimedia Commons (cc2)
Algae flip-flops, on the other hand, are made from a fast-growing, wild-harvested, utterly renewable, carbon-storing, injection-moldable life form that, left to itself, might be choking the oxygen – and hence the life – out of a lake or reservoir through eutrophication[3] if it were not harvested for industry.
If all flip-flops were made from algae, the fact that many see them as essentially disposable wouldn’t cause a problem. Polyurethane flip-flops “may take anywhere between 200 to 1,000 years to degrade,[4] whereas algal soles biodegrade as quickly and easily as the organic plant material they’re made from.
But as things stand, beaches on every coast – from Africa to India to uninhabited coral atolls – have become infested with these discarded relics of the welcome mat.
On St. Brandon’s Rock for example, a lightly inhabited coral islet group in the Indian Ocean, researchers found – among 50,000 general pieces of trash – a hefty 11,000 of such sandals.[5] In fact, these semi-shoes are believed to comprise “up to 25% of ocean plastic pollution.”[6]
St. Brandon’s Archipelago in the Indian Ocean, Northeast of Mauritius.
Satellite image courtesy Google Earth.
Aside from the aesthetics, the petroleum-based plastics and polyurethanes used to make most flip-flops are perilous for marine life, and to humans. The core plastics are toxic themselves, but because the easily flammable polyurethane is usually impregnated with high amounts of toxic flame-retardants, colorants, and more, they are terrible for marine ecosystems.[7]
It’s tempting to think we could just end the manufacture of these sandals but the three billion[8] or so folks who can barely afford shoes at all turn to the humble flip-flop – so called because of the sounds made as they flap up and down from heel to pavement[9] – for their footwear because they are generally so inexpensive.
Many of the countries these people live in have sub-par waste disposal strategies to begin with and once a flip-flop enters a body of water it may travel great distances. The St. Brandon’s Rock study, for example, found “the brand names on the flip-flops… indicate that …this debris has travelled 3,350 kilometres (2,081 miles), roughly the distance from Stockholm to Bagdad [sic].”[10]
“These are the shoes of a fisherman and a farmer,” explained chemistry professor Stephen Mayfield – who helped pioneer an algal foam – in 2017.[11] “This is the No.1 shoe in India, the No.1 shoe in China and the No.1 shoe in Africa,” with sales expected to top $18 billion in 2019.[12]
It’s probably no coincidence that Professor Mayfield and colleagues first used their algae foam to replace the polyurethane cores of surfboards and flip-flops. They were, after all, working at U.C. San Diego, where beachwear is practically compulsory.
Japanese traditional rice straw-and-cloth zōri sandals. Photo by Monica Volpin / Pixabay
Their timing was excellent too, as flip-flops made of alternatives to polyurethane are clearly called for. A sudden proliferation of traditional materials, not algae alone, are now on the market.
Rice-straw zōri,[13] for example, which started the flip-flop trend when soldiers stationed in post-war Japan brought them back in their duffle bags.[14] Flip-flops made of fair-trade rubber,[15] wood, twine, and even recycled wine corks[16] have been popping up too, but algae has some advantages over most of these.
For one thing it’s among the fastest reproducing organisms on earth – doubling in mass every 3 to 24 hours depending on conditions[17] – making it one of the most sustainable materials imaginable. It can be harvested directly from lakes and waterways where “freshwater habitats are also at significant risk, with algae growth choking and poisoning delicately balanced ecosystems.”[18]
It’s not only biodegradable, but non-toxic. That’s helpful because algae is a natural part of the food chain for animals up to and including humans. One way or another, algal flip-flops washed up on a beach probably won’t be there long.
Some strains of oceanic algae foam up as they die off toward the end of a ‘bloom,’ by secreting a viscous, mucilage-like foam so thick it can actually impede water activities in the area. This substance contributed to the tragic deaths of five experienced surfers in the Netherlands just this year, as search-and-rescue efforts were impeded by foamy surf that coated waves, the emergency teams, and their equipment. A helicopter was used in an attempt to break it up.[19]
Bloom Treadwell Algae foam soles. Source: Bloom Treadwell press kit.
Freshwater algae however – though a serious problem when conditions such as nutrient pollution from agricultural runoff cause them to reproduce too quickly[20] – can be harvested easily and made into a polyurethane foam-like material suitable for many applications.
Among those are, as noted, surf boards, the soles of flip-flops and now, parts of many other types of shoes, backpacks, and other athletic equipment, by manufacturers all over the world.[21]
Brands like Adidas, Chippewa, Saola, Surftech, Dr. Scholl’s and many more have partnered with an algal foam company called Bloom whose founder discovered that algae, “when placed under significant heat, pressure, and time, underwent a plasticization process,”[22] and could be similarly extruded and molded like polyurethane. A few years later, they began manufacturing their own footwear before beginning to supply other companies with algae foam.
Bloom Treadwell mobile algae harvesting unit. Source: Bllom Treadwell press kit.
But algae harvesting goes beyond simply replacing an oil-based product with a natural one. Algae is a critical part of the carbon cycle, soaking up atmospheric CO2 during photosynthesis. When algae is used, the oil it replaces need not be pumped or refined, and the algae both takes up and – once made into footwear – sequesters the carbon for years.[23] In all, according to manufacturer Bloom, algal foams have “40% less impact on the environment than purely petroleum-based equivalents. They also require 35% less energy to process and produce.”[24]
Algal biomass also makes excellent renewable biofuel because it generates “many times more oil per acre than other plants used for biofuels, such as corn or soybeans.”[25] Some algae contains about 50% carbon by dry weight, making it almost ideal for biodiesel.[26]
With flip-flop sales at around 3 billion pairs annually – the pandemic has raised sales recently by some 53% (because who needs shoes when only visible from the waist up?)[27] – lending even more urgency to replacing all that plastic.
If even a strong fraction of these sandals could ‘flip’ to algae, thousands of tons of polyurethane would be prevented from persisting in the environment. No doubt the Pharos and the Greek Philosophers would approve of a flip-flop like that.
Vertical Solar I:
PV Stands Tall
In case you were planning to calculate how much surface area it would take to power the entire world with solar, don’t bother: back in 2009, someone at Land Art Generator beat you to it.[1] The answer? 496,805 square kilometers (191,817 square miles).
That friends, is a lot of solar panels.
But how big is 500k kilometers2 really? According to these guys, the uninhabited portions of the Sahara alone – some 9 million km2 – is 46 times the area needed for the planet’s energy needs by 2030.
Then again, they say, if panels were rolled out as fast as rainforest is being burned for industry – 170,000 sq kilometers every year,[2] the project would be finished in only 3 years.
Okay, so clearly there’s enough sunny real estate available globally to more than get this done but even so it’s probably not likely we’ll blanket such enormous areas with a PVs. For the time being we need as much solar as possible in the minimum amount of room. The best way to achieve that would be to improve the power generation of solar panels and to allow more panels in a smaller space. How can we get there?
The answer appears to be simple: go vertical.
Going Vertical
This is not about the efficacy of laying standard rectangular panels upright versus lengthwise. This is about upright solar innovations that are radically different from – and take up far less space than – garden-variety solar farms, and may well revolutionize the industry in a few years.
BIPV solar panels cover the facade on the Social Services Centre Jose Villarreal, Madrid, Spain.
Photo by Hanjin. Source: Wikipedia (CC3.0)
One of these, building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) and building-adapted photovoltaics (BAPV) take ‘vertical’ to a whole new level – all the way to the top of steel-and-glass skyscrapers – and is so critical going forward that it’s the subject of our next story.
Another, and our topic here, is any of several innovative vertical solutions involving free-standing, upright PV structures that both require less room and generate more power than their reclining cousins.
One example of this thinking-outside-the-frame is the new ‘vertical polygen solar tower,’ unveiled in Los Lunas, New Mexico this June.
Wiltech Solar Polygen Tower. Photo courtesy Wiltech
A village called Los Lunas – the moons – is admittedly an odd one for testing a device that runs on sunshine, but this 6-sided tower – built by New Jersey-based startup Wiltech Energy – packs 20kW into 4.5 square meters (49 sf)[3] and is topped by a bladeless wind turbine for additional power and generation during times of low light. A 22kW storage battery is included to keep power flowing continuously.
Designed to power the village’s recycling facility, the polygon approach is a radically different type of panel structure which involves a number of small panels set in vertical tiers at different angles in such a way as to gather light no matter where the sun is relative to them.
The other key to vertical is the way the angle of sunshine interacts with the PV materials. Flat panels are generally laid out in series and raked to specific angles depending on planetary coordinates. In Arizona, for example, “south-facing panels with a 57˚ tilt” are called for, whereas in Minnesota a range of 22˚(summer) to 68˚ (winter) is optimal.[4]
The efficiency of various PV panels under snowy conditions is measured at a test facility in Vermont.
Photo by Sandias Regional National Laboratory. Source: U.S. Department of Energy.
Horizontal panels, whether ground or roof based, are raked to catch the sun when it is directly overhead, and fall off considerably in output earlier and later in the day. Vertical panels, on the other hand, capture light far longer and continue to produce even as the sun is on the horizon.
The polygon structure does the same by capturing light more directly from east to west and – as each of the six sides is vertical – for longer than is usual. Such light is largely lost to standard panels, which thrive on overhead light but fare poorly at other times. In addition, the panels are hung on masts for maximum exposure and this allows more panels to be stacked on top. The whole contraption takes a fraction of the land space – about 4 square meters – so land costs would be lower.
But this doesn’t tell the whole tale. Horizontal panels, wherever they’re placed, lose power when all or part of their surface becomes obscured by dust, dirt, pollen, sand or snow. Such panels may be covered in snow for weeks or months while, in desert regions such as the Sahara mentioned above, or even the New Mexican landscape near Los Lunas, sand and dust storms pose a serious problem.
A sandstorm hits a ‘solar-enhanced’ oil-recovery facility in Oman in 2014.
Photo by GlassPoint Solar. Source: Wikimedia Commons (CC3.0)
Complex equipment has been developed to clean them adding a fortune in time, money and that most precious of desert materials, water. Considering our original premise, powering the world by solar alone, cleaning half a million square klicks of PV is a truly Herculean task.
And the multi-sided approach means the sun has more surface to impact as it courses from sunrise to sunset and throughout the seasons. In addition, the vertical polygon approach is stackable… the taller the mast, the more panels can be loaded on[6] so ever-more kilowatts can be added without needing additional real estate.
As Wilson told Valutus, his inspiration to build vertical solar was looking up at New York City's skyscrapers one day and realizing their height created more space while actually saving precious room on the ground.
Indeed, “Wilson says his system can generate two megawatts of electricity in a one-acre area, compared with just one megawatt in a 4.5- to 5-acre area with horizontal systems.”[7]
“We believe this technology will change the way solar power is delivered,” Wilson continued.”[8] These systems are listed as “grid-tied, off-grid or a combination of both and scalable,” according to Wiltech’s website, and the Los Lunas power unit is closed circuit, neither taking from nor feeding into the grid.
It’s also the first of its type deployed commercially, so all eyes are on it awaiting results. If it is successful, we will see more power requiring less real estate… and more work for the guys who like to calculate how much solar is needed to power the planet.
Vertical solar towers. Photo courtesy Wiocor Energy.
3D Solar Towers
Meanwhile, in 2012 an MIT working group designed a truly radical prototype that uses conventional PV materials technology but, like the polygonal towers discussed above, configures them differently for the purpose of “collecting solar energy in three dimensions,”[9] as opposed to overhead light striking a single flat panel.
Placing double-sided squares of accordion-folded PV materials in a vertical frame – with or without external cuboid scaffolding – the researchers found these babies were capable of generating “between 2 and 20 times” more output than traditional materials.[10] Twenty times? Jumpin’ generators!
Like their polygonal cousins, the key to these solar towers – which resemble the compact disk racks of old – is not better materials, it is simply about capturing far more sunlight and for longer.
“By going vertical and collecting more sunlight when the sun is closer to the horizon, the team’s 3D modules were able to generate a more uniform output over time. This uniformity extended over the course of each day, the seasons of a year, and even when accounting for blockage from clouds and shadows,” noted New Atlas[11]
When tested on an MIT rooftop for some weeks, the researchers confirmed the folded materials could make energy at lower solar angles.
And, according to Wiocor Energy, which has now commercialized this design, the panels also receive a “boost from reflected and diffuse light” that flat panels can’t use.[12] In other words, once light hits a flat panel, some is absorbed and some bounces off and is lost. With stackable panels on the other hand, light reflecting from the ground, and light bouncing off panels above and below, can be absorbed by another panel, thereby raising the level of power these stands can generate.
As with the old image of humanoids learning to stand upright, vertical just might be the next step in the evolution of solar.
Vertical Solar II: If You Build It, Build PV In
The Empire State Building from the air looking down at the 34th Street entrance.
Photo by Sam Valadi. Source: Wikipedia (CC2.0)
In 1931, when the Empire State Building (ESB) was erected, coal and oil were booming, and the development of a modern photovoltaic cell prototype was still eight years away.[1] As far as the public was concerned, the sun was for tanning and skyscrapers were for height and that was that.
A decade ago however, some tourists in line for the Observation Deck elevators found themselves inside an exhibit detailing the half-billion-dollar energy retrofit the building was about to receive.[2] The renovation mostly focused on lighting and window insulation, but pointed up the fact that skyscrapers were built for style, or for status, for profit or pride but, until recently, they were definitely not built with energy efficiency in mind.
These structures are “an energy-saver’s nightmare, with their vast glass facades, electric lighting everywhere, overly generous use of air conditioning and heating, and elevators by the dozen.”[3]
Consider then, the coal- and oil-based emissions in a city like New York, which boasts more than 284 buildings over 150 m (492 ft) tall, with more than 30 more under construction.[4] And New York’s not alone. China is listed as having over 2,000 such structures, and globally there are well over 600 in development.[5]
Thin-film solar PV building-integrated shingles. Photo: National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL).
And that’s concerning because a 2019 survey by The Times of London found that just six buildings in the London downtown area were responsible for “more than 12,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide every year,” equaling the output of more than 3,000 automobiles.[6]
There are some analyses seeking to calculate the average greenhouse emissions of skyscrapers[7] but using London’s 2,000 tonnes of CO2 per tower as a rough baseline, it seems these structures in the aggregate are responsible for something like a staggering 4 million tonnes annually, with far more on the way.
Keep in mind this is only structures over about 500 feet – roughly 35 stories. There are many supertalls, thousands less tall. Because, according to the U.N., “buildings and their construction together account for 36 percent of global energy use and 39 percent of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions annually,”[8] the footprint of the largest buildings matters.
But what if a tower could be turned into a full-scale solar farm? Not just the roof, but the whole exterior? Could that help reduce emissions enough to stem the tide? Or looked at another way, is there any scenario under which we can substantially reduce tower emissions without doing something like this? While LED lighting and better insulation can have an impact, farming sunshine with these structures is low-hanging emissions-reduction fruit, if such can be said of anything so tall.
Aside from lighting, floor insulation and other interior fixes, these structures can have vast solar farms built into their façades, rooftops, windows, and masonry, a process known as building integrated photovoltaics (BIPV), or can retrofit existing structures with many of the same solar solutions.
Sun on a glass tower in Los Angeles. Photo by Meriç Dağlı / Unsplash
Let’s take a skyscraper with the same dimensions as the boxy, cuboid North Tower of the old World Trade Center in New York City. The building stood 1,368’ high by 209’ wide on every side,[9] just a touch under 286,000 sf – about 6.5 acres’ worth of solar contact surface on one side of the tower alone.
That’s a lot of real estate. A ground-based solar farm that size can generate a little more than 1.6 MW of electricity.[10] Add a full acre of panels on the roof, plus three other sides of the building all of which can be embedded with the same materials to capture direct or ambient light, and suddenly a building which was belching tens of tons of CO2 may be at net zero.
BIPV may take the form of “classic (framed) modules, flexible crystalline or thin-film on metal substrate, roof-tiles with solar cells, transparent monocrystalline modules, modules with colored solar cells, semitransparent micro perforated amorphous,” and more.”[11]
Currently, the international gold standard for a building’s energy emissions is the Net Zero Energy Building platform, which advocates for “buildings that, through renewable means, produce as much energy as they consume, when accounted for annually.”[12]
As noted by PV Magazine last month, “vertical PV installations are a necessity if urban districts are to hit NZEB goals, as rooftop panels alone are not sufficient.”[13]
Vertically aligned PV systems also achieve a “higher peak irradiance either side of midday than horizontal setups, diminishing the mismatch between energy production and demand.”[14]
BIPV-clad CIS Tower, Miller Street, Manchester, England. The building is actually selling power to the grid.
Photo by Stephen Richards. Source: Wikipedia (CC2.0)
Indeed, it would behoove us to start immediately as “carbon emissions related to buildings are expected to double by 2050 if action at scale doesn’t occur.”[15]
Double! It’s difficult to know how we’re going to reduce buildings’ energy use dramatically without building and refurbishing buildings in this manner. The output of these towers can’t be offset with just smart lights and insulation, and governments know action must be taken.
New York city, for example, has passed significant laws requiring “buildings of more than 25,000 square feet (2,300 square meters) to reduce emissions by 40 percent by 2030 from their 2005 levels. It will affect the approximately 50,000 buildings that emit one-third of the city’s greenhouse gases.”[16]
It should be noted that some interesting issues arise when building facades are solar-equipped. For one thing, as the PV absorbs light, far less light reflects back to other buildings in the area and a ‘darkening effect’ may occur.[17]
In addition, due to placement within an urban matrix, available sunlight, etc., some buildings may not get all the way to net zero.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, U.S.A.
Photo by Dennis Schroeder. Source: Wikipedia
Nonetheless, a survey by “NREL found that 62% of office buildings, or 47% of commercial floor space, can reach net-zero energy use by implementing current energy efficiency technologies and self-generation (solar PV). By redesigning all buildings to comply with current standards, implementing current energy efficiency measures, and outfitting buildings with solar panels, average energy use intensity can be reduced from 1020 to 139 MJ/m2-yr, an 86% reduction in energy use intensity.”[18]
The bad news here is the amount of work, and grit, getting this done will take. The good news is, we have the materials and the technology to do it. Watch this space.
Cyclone Update: A Pace-Setting Year
Hurricanes Marco (left) and Laura (right) in the Gulf of Mexico.
Photo by NASA, August 23, 2020.
A brief update for those who missed it.
Previously[1] we detailed some disturbing changes in tropical cyclones, such as deviations from their usual hunting grounds, increases in frequency, and also in the number of more severe cyclonic events.
These changes have long been predicted by climatologists and, as we reported, scientists are now validating both the connection between rising oceanic and atmospheric temperatures and more frequent, more severe cyclones, specifically tying the likelihood and severity of individual hurricanes (and other weather events) to anthropomorphic activity, i.e., us.
Most of that validation comes through incredibly complex and thorough computer modelling, to which scientists are adding all the time. But sometimes those methods seem a little over the top. Sometimes, it’s simply a matter of counting on our fingers. The problem now is, it’s only August and we’re already out of fingers.
Halfway through the 2020 season, there were 12* storms large enough to be named in the Atlantic. That has never happened this early in the season[2] since such records have been kept.
We were already well ahead in mid-August, and that’s when the twins showed up: Hurricane Laura and Tropical Storm Marco, which were both roaming the Gulf of Mexico at the same time, something that has only been recorded twice before.[3]
We certainly don’t need computer modeling to tell us something unusual is going on. And this may be one of those times when scientists were hoping all their conclusions were wrong. Better batten down, people.
*Note: as we go to press, there have now been 17 named storms in the Atlantic. There were 18 named storms in the entirety of the very active 2019 season.
Observations: A RISE in Gender Equity?
We’ve written extensively on the issue of women’s equity in business and government, including our five-part series in April, 2020.
It’s clear there’s a long way to go before real equity and equality is achieved. On the other hand, many companies – though they are working hard on this – simply aren’t sure how to proceed.
As an example, we highlighted research demonstrating that companies focused on non-discriminatory hiring methodologies are not having the success they expected. Why? Their hiring practices, it seems, are only half the problem. The other half is creating the right kind of pipeline in all areas of the business so top female candidates are position-ready when higher positions are posted. Without that, they can’t achieve their equity goals.
A company may look at their overall workforce and say, “hey, we’re doing great! Our staff is 54% female! They might even say their management group is more than half women, and that’s terrific!
But what level of management? What about their Executive Vice Presidents? Partners? What about their C-Suites and corporate Boards? By those measures, most companies still have a long way to go.
It has long been a truism that top executives – CEOs and COOs for example – were selected almost exclusively from the operational, sales and finance tracks[1] but rarely from the ranks of IT or HR.
Maybe you’re thinking, “So? Nothing wrong with that!” But recent studies have found that HR managers were overwhelmingly women (72%)[2] while HR generalists were an off-the-scale 86%[3] female, which means this way of selecting top execs reduced the percentage of women on the road to the corner office.
That men are disproportionately in departments that are “fast tracks” to the C-Suite – while women are not – affects the pipeline of new leadership. As a result, the true state of a company’s gender equality efforts needs to include the Fast Track element:
What are the departments / roles that generate the majority of top execs?
Are there gender imbalances in those departments?
If you haven’t seen the Fast Track element in most discussions of gender equity, you’re not alone. But it needs to be there, along with other key metrics such as the percentage of the workforce that is female, the percentage of women in company leadership, the pay gap, and others. Here’s how we see the key top-line components for determining where a company is on gender equity:
Valutus RISE Elements Chart. Source: Valutus
If that seems like more elements than you’re used to, it probably is. (And there are additional details under some elements, such as under leadership,percentage of managers, directors, top execs, and board members who are female.) It’s important to get this right, and that means thinking more broadly and deeply about what determines a company’s true level of gender equality.
Look, this is not a drill: this is existential. Research has shown again and again that it’s not only equity at stake, but profits.[4] Women are good at this stuff and female CEOs, owners, and partners are garnering tremendous success – for themselves and their companies – in high-level roles… when they can get them. Likewise, companies with female founders also do better than those without.[5]
So competitive incentives alone suggest this is mission critical, and companies need it addressed, with the vast majority needing to do better. But what, exactly, must they do to make that happen?
Our approach is to examine each of the elements in turn, looking for data and talking with key individuals. In the past, this would have been followed by a long and complex analysis, carefully weighting various factors, and sifting the numbers to arrive at an indexed number that shows – explicitly – how the company’s gender equity rating stands.
This is of real value, but it has always taken a significant investment of both time and resources. But now it doesn’t have to: we’ve now developed a tool – hey, it’s us, right? – that encompasses all that is laid out above and indexes it onto a scale we call the Rating Index of Success and Equality (RISE) for gender equity.
It will not only be clear how the company is doing overall, but the specific areas that need improvement will be laid out clearly as well.
From there it’s up to the company to set goals and decide how far and how fast they wish to proceed. (We also assist with designing solutions and implementing them, when asked.)
But a core belief of ours is that if there is a good, easy-to-understand measure, then once people understand how to move the needle on it, that will catalyze progress. And that is what the RISE score provides.
If you want to hear more about this, or discuss how you could use it, just let us know.
Intelligence:
Risk Modelling Finds a New Tool
You’ve just moved from Arizona – where you were in the habit of walking the short mile to work and back in a wide-brimmed hat, sunglasses, SPF-15, and loafers – to Seattle, where you plan to continue the practice.
Being cautious, however, you decide to use the traditional risk model to calculate how much damage the Pacific Coast rain might cause.
So, you first identify the likelihood of rain and find that it rains about 42% of the time, averaging 152 days a year.
Likelihood: 42%
Seems like a reasonable risk, so you set off confidently.
Naturally, you’re soon in the lobby, your soaked and bedraggled new suit in need of reshaping. The loafers are brimful after that bus hit the puddle just right. Your I.D. papers and the company handbook were in a pocket and will need to be replaced, and you’re juggling the apple, sandwich, and cookies which broke through their soggy paper sack. Security is eyeing you suspiciously.
Aside from self-respect, and the bad first impression you’ll make at the office – what we call ‘submerged’ risk, which we’ll discuss later – the actual damage is about a hundred bucks.
Magnitude: $100
Using the classic model, we now have the equation:
The Vulnerability Model
But the model above is incomplete. It identifies bad things that could happen, certainly, and it tells you how expensive the outcome will be if they do. But it doesn’t account for vulnerability.
Unlike Likelihood – an external phenomenon not in your control – vulnerability is internal, something you can manage. (Magnitude is a combination of factors. Some costs of damage may not be in your control while, as we’ll see below, there are ways to control and minimize magnitude.)
Let’s reset the above scenario. As you’re walking out the door in Seattle, you grab an umbrella and set off down the street to go meet the team.
This won’t impact the likelihood of rain at all, so the level of threat is still the same 42%.
External Threat Level: 42%
However, your umbrella has dramatically reduced your vulnerability to a rain shower. Only a major downpour, heavy winds, or an umbrella failure, can seriously damage you now. Collectively, you calculate, the chances of one of those happening is around 7%.
Vulnerability: 7%
You can also reduce the magnitude by protecting certain specifically vulnerable areas. Rubber boots or overshoes for your loafers; a raincoat for the suit, and a waterproof valise for documents, will limit potential damage greatly. Your protection isn’t perfect, and if the umbrella fails, you’ll get wet here and there, but you will still arrive at the office in good condition. You might have lost the lunch, and your trousers will need pressing, a total of about twelve bucks.
Magnitude: $12
Now we’re talking! The risk has been reduced dramatically.
This is how things generally work. Most people understand there are basic vulnerabilities and that they can protect against most of them. But they don’t always do the work to assess their level of vulnerability. This model forces an examination of vulnerability and it can illuminate risk in ways that the old ‘likelihood’ model can’t.
In Arizona, where the likelihood of rain is minimal, you might get away with using that model even though it’s incomplete. Yet even there, downpours do happen and vulnerability in the context of specific risks should be accounted for. The threat/vulnerability/magnitude/risk model takes this into account.
A mismatch between the above elements is where the risk meets the road. As we’ve seen, a low level of threat paired with high vulnerability is probably fairly safe. High threat with very low vulnerability is also a reasonable risk. But high threat paired with high vulnerability is a recipe for disaster. That is a mismatch and action must be taken to protect assets.
Submerged Risk / Submerged Value
When you arrive for the meeting, dry and kempt, your reputation – so at risk in the first instance – will not suffer, thus wiping out the submerged risk. In fact, as others see how well prepared you were for Seattle’s inclement weather, your reputation will be enhanced. This, of course, is submerged value, secondary and tertiary value from the actions you take that, like submerged risks, are buried under the surface, invisible until raised.
Omnipresent Risk
Rain, even in Seattle, is not a constant. It is often possible to walk to work unscathed, safe and dry. But what about when the threat never goes away?
Let’s place you in your brand-new Pacific Coast office. Your new laptop isn’t ready, so you pull out your own and hotspot your way to the internet. You are now at a 100% level of threat from malware, ransomware, security breaches, data loss and equipment damage.
How do the two models compare now? When the risk is constant it’s not even close.
Old Model:
Okay, but is that a realistic assessment? How many people in 2020 don’t have some sort of protection on their systems? This model, once again, does not specifically account for that. Under the new model, the risk looks like this:
Of course, the costs of reducing vulnerability and magnitude must be factored in as well, whether an umbrella and galoshes, or antivirus protection and cloud backup. The total now becomes:
This is not just a huge difference in total risk from the likelihood model, it’s also a far more accurate description of the way the world works. All organizations know the chance of an unprotected computer being compromised is 100%, and none just resign themselves to suffering the full magnitude of the damage.
Since every organization takes precautions, and since they do so to varying degrees – and have varying degrees of sensitive or damaging equipment and data – they don’t share the same levels of risk. The likelihood model simply doesn’t match reality.
The vulnerability approach does reflect the real world, and it also works better when it comes to sustainability-related risks. The chance that global temperatures go up by, say, 1˚C, is 100%[1]. That could have all sorts of ramifications, and vulnerability must be reduced accordingly. Facilities, supply chain, water availability, working conditions, and more: all must be adjusted for climate resilience.[2] Using the likelihood model means not accounting for this (or mistaking it for part of magnitude), making it a bad fit for today’s world.
Once threat, vulnerability, and magnitude have been separated, you’re immediately better off. And you can take this a step further through actions that reduce not only vulnerability, but also magnitude.
In the computer example that means lowering the losses if you do get infected and reducing the time and expense of recovery. Backing up regularly, keeping sensitive information encrypted, etc., would reduce the damage if malware did get through your defenses.
In the climate risk example, it might mean better building designs for cooler spaces, or faster-cooling infrastructure to keep heat-related disruptions short. It could also mean extra inventory to keep downstream operations running in case of a shutdown, or a new process to shift production between facilities in case of climate-related slowdowns in one area. All these reduce the magnitude of risk and they complement your efforts to reduce vulnerability.
Missing Elements
Another problem with current models of risk is that, within vulnerability (and for the Likelihood x Magnitude model, within magnitude), they often miss key elements.
First, as we’ve seen far too much recently, there’s an enormous difference between knowing what to do, having the capacity to do it, and actually doing it. When you don’t separate these, you miss areas of vulnerability. Second, as discussed above – and as will be the topic of an upcoming article – submerged risk, by its very nature, is almost always overlooked.
Risk Tool
In order to build a true model of risk for any project or initiative, the meaningful potential threats and vulnerabilities must be identified. The magnitude must be calculated along with costs of mitigation. Done manually, this process can be complex and taxing.
When something is both necessary and difficult, making it less difficult is powerful. This is why we developed our Risk Tool, which encompasses the model described above: identifying threats, searching for vulnerabilities, calculating loss magnitudes, and diving beneath the surface to find and account for submerged risks.
Risk Tool. Source: Valutus
Once connected to your internal systems, the tool can do in a few hours what used to take days, and gives us a thorough, comprehensive, and concise view of risk. And, as you can see, it makes risks visible, sortable (by geography, threat type, time horizon, and business unit) and, most importantly, more actionable. (If you’d like to know more, drop us a line).
We will deal with submerged risk in… well, in depth, in an upcoming article. For now we’ll simply say, using an incomplete model for assessing risk carries big risks of its own.
Thanks for reading. I hope you found this worth your time.
If not, please accept my apology and click the unsubscribe link... or, hang in there and we’ll work to make the next issue worth your while!
References: Nano Air [1] The New York Times, Where’s Airborne Plastic? Everywhere, Scientists Find, Janice Braney, June 11, 2020, Utah State University [2] Ibid [3] Plastic Soup Foundation, How Damaging is Breathing in Microplastic?May 19, 2020
[4] Science, Vol. 368, Plastic Rain in Protected Areas in the United States, June 12, 2020 [5] The New York Times, Massive Saharan Dust Cloud to Move Across Southeast U.S. This Week, June 22, 2020 [6] Environmental Pollution, Gigault, et al, Current Opinion: What is a Microplastic? , April, 2018: “The term “nanoplastics” is still under debate, and different studies have set the upper size limit at either 1000 nm or 100 nm.” [7] National Geographic, Microplastics are Raining Down from the Sky, April 2019
[8] Fibre2Fashion, Global Polyester Market Outlook Till 2020, April 2017
[9] Volume is expected to decline in 2020 due to global production and market disruptions. Global Polyester Production is Expected to Decline by More Than Half a Million Tonnes This Year, Report Says, June 1, 2020
[10] Business Insider/Markets, Global and China Polyester Market to 2023 – Rising Demand for Bio-Based PET & Emerging Modified Polyester Fiber, July 2019
[11] Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Uetake et al, Airborne Bacteria Confirm the Pristine Nature of the Southern Ocean Boundary Layer, June 16, 2020
[12] Ibid [13] Pun intended -Editor [14] Phys.org, Atmospheric Scientists Identify Cleanest Air on Earth in First-of-its-Kind Study, June 2, 2020 [15]Valutus Sustainability R.O.I. #19, Nano Plastics: Assessing in Billionths
[16] Nature, Ingested Plastic Transfers Hazardous to Fish and Induces Hepatic Stress, Nov 2013
[17] Science Direct/Water Research, Interaction of Toxic Chemicals with Microplastics: A Critical Review,Aug 2018
[4] Recycling Product News, Eco-Friendly Manufacturer in UK Turns Focus to Curbing Flip Flop Sandal Waste, Aug 2019
[5] Linköping University, Environmental Researcher Counts Flip-Flops in the Indian Ocean, Aug 2016
[6] Digital Trends, Earth’s Oceans are Full of Old Flip-Flops. Scientists Have a Plan to Fix That, Aug 2020 [7] Toxic-Free Future, Toxic Flame Retardants, 2020
[8] Inside Africa, Millions of Discarded Flip Flops Posing Huge Hazard to Ocean Life,April 2017
[9] Wikipedia, Flip-Flops / Etymology [10] Linköping University, Environmental Researcher Counts Flip-Flops in the Indian Ocean, Aug 2016
[11] U.C. San Diego News, A Flip Flop Revolution, Oct 2017
[12] Recycling Product News, Eco-Friendly Manufacturer in UK Turns Focus to Curbing Flip Flop Sandal Waste, Aug 2019
[17] Biotechnology Advances 25 p.296, Chisti, Y., Biodiesel from Microalgae, Feb 2007
[18] Your Sole, ‘The Lightest Tread’ blog, BLOOM Foam Sandals: Flipping the Script on Harmful Algae Blooms, Aug 2019 [19] CNN, Five Surfers Die in the Netherlands after Huge Layer of Sea Foam Hampers Rescue,May 13, 2020
[20] National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Freshwater Harmful Algal Blooms 101, Aug 2019
[23] The Scientist, Lowering Carbon with Algae, June 2012
[24] Your Sole, ‘The Lightest Tread’ blog, BLOOM Foam Sandals: Flipping the Script on Harmful Algae Blooms, Aug 2019
[25] International Journal of Plant Production; Petrovic, et al, Polyols and Polyurethanes from Crude Algal Oil,April 2013
[26] Biotechnology Advances 25, Chisti, Y., Biodiesel from Microalgae, Feb 2007
[27] The Guardian, Flip-Flop Sales Surge as Casual and Comfortable Fashion Wins Lockdown, Aug 8, 2020
References: Vertical Solar 1
[1] Land Art Generator, Total Surface Area Required to Fuel the World with Solar, Aug 2009 [2] Ibid [3] Radiolocman, Los Lunas, New Mexico Unveils Cutting Edge Solar Technology,June 10, 2020
[4] Understand Solar, Do Vertical Solar Panels Make Financial Sense?April 2018 [5] Power Systems Design, Los Lunas, New Mexico Unveils Cutting Edge Solar Technology, June 8, 2020
[7] News-Bulletin, Los Lunas Tries Out New Solar Technology, July 23, 2020 [8] Power Systems Design, Los Lunas, New Mexico Unveils Cutting Edge Solar Technology, June 8, 2020 [9] Energy and Environmental Science Issue #5, Bernardi et al, Solar Energy Generation in Three Dimensions, 2012 [10]New Atlas, 3D Solar Towers Offer up to 20 Times More Power Output than Traditional Flat Solar Panels, March 2012 [11] Ibid [12] Wiocor Energy, https://wioenergy.com/solar-towers.html
References: Vertical Solar 2 [1] Wikipedia, Solar Panel/History
[2] RSES, Empire State Building Exhibits Benefits of Energy Efficiency,2011 [3] Phys.org, New York Takes Aim at Skyscrapers’ Sky-High Energy Usage, June, 2019
[4]Wikipedia, List of Cities with the Most Skyscrapers
[5] Ibid [6] The Times of London, Skyscrapers Pump Out Thousands of Tonnes of CO2,July 2019 [7] Procedia Environmental Sciences Vol 38, Saroglou, et al, Quantifying Energy Consumption in Skyscrapers of Various Heights, 2017 [8] UN Environment, Global Status Report 2017, 2017 [9] Old Skyscraper, New York’s Super Slenders, Oct 2016 [10] GreenCoast, Solar Farm Land Requirements: How Much Land do you Need?June 2019 [11] PV Resources, Building Integrated Photovoltaic Systems, Aug 2018 [12] NZEB, Definitions/Policies
[15] Curbed, How Do Buildings Contribute to Climate Change, Sept 2019
[16] Phys.org, New York Takes Aim at Skyscrapers’ Sky-High Energy Usage, June, 2019 [17] PV Magazine, How Much Vertical BIPV is Too Much? July 28, 2020 [18] University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems, Commercial Buildings Factsheet, 2019
References: Cyclone Revisited
[1] Valutus.com, Cyclones: They’ll be Coming Around Again, July 2, 2020
[2] The New York Times, Tropical Storm Josephine Forms in the Atlantic, Aug 13, 2020 [3] The Star, Once in a Lifetime: Two Hurricanes, Same Time, Same Place, Aug 21, 2020
References: RISE for Gender Equity [1] Forbes/Erik Savitz, The Path to Becoming a Fortune 500 CEO, Dec 2011
[2] Study.com, Why is the HR Profession Dominated by Women?Dec 2019
[3] Ibid [4] Quartz, Companies with More Women Directors Generate a 36% Higher Return on Equity, Dec 2015 [5] Crunchbase News, Q1 2019 Diversity Report: Female Founders Own 17 Percent of Venture Dollars, April 2019
References: Risk Tool
[1] Bloomberg Green, Global Warming Prediction Sounds Alarm for Climate Fight, December 2019
