Can transportation become sustainable with biofuels?

by Birgitte and Ellen

From 1990 to 2015 Norway has seen a 25% increase in emission from the transportation sector (Miljødirektoratet, 2017). This is mainly due to a combination of both economic and population growth, which has resulted in an increase in transportation of both goods and people, as well as a population that has the financial means to travel often. This trend also reflects in which means of transportation that emit the most, with the four main Norwegian emitters being small passenger cars (5.6M ton), heavy transportation (4.6M ton), ship transport and fishing (2.8M ton) and domestic aviation (1.4M ton). Norway and all other EU-countries has established a common goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) with 40% from 1990-level to 2030 in July 2016 and many Norwegian politicians want large parts of this reduction done by biofuels (Helgesen, 2016). But, is biofuel really that sustainable?

First of all, some facts. Biofuel is produced through a biological process and can come from plants, industrial waste and indirectly from agriculture (BusinessDictionary, 2015). It can be used as a complete substitute to fossil fuels, but is more often used as a diesel additive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles powered by diesel. The reason why we look at biofuel as a greener solution is that the plants that go into making biofuel absorb CO2 from the atmosphere as they grow. However, biofuel also emit CO2 from those plants when it is burned for fuel. So, it all boils down to if biofuels are carbon neutral or not.

The transportation industry argues that emissions from plants should not count, since the CO2 from those plants already was in the atmosphere and will be “eaten up” by new plants (Stefanini & Saeed, 2016). Critics, on the other hand, argue that we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions sooner rather than later, in order to mitigate climate change and global warming. Furthermore, indirect land-use-emissions, that come from developing new land for biofuel plants, further blunts any potential benefits from plant-based fuels. Biofuel crops are very similar to ordinary crops and are therefore more fit to grow in some areas than others. This means that not only would we have to allocate valuable soil to biofuel, but we would also have to ship it, truck it or pipe it to consumers living in low-producing areas, which would increase both emissions from production and total costs.

Another dispute over biofuels, is the dilemma “climate over food”. The demand for food is expected to rise by 70% within 2050 (Steinmetz, 2016), which raises a question if we should continue to use productive land to create biofuel when we have other, much more efficient alternatives, like fossil fuels. Furthermore, is the need for water. Any first-grader you ask can answer the simple question of what a plant needs to grow: water and sunlight. Freshwater is scarce, and the water demands would put unsustainable pressure on water resources in some areas.

There are many more issues with biodiesel, so we suggest that we try to make transportation more sustainable in other areas first. To reduce our general need for transportation there are many measures that could be implemented. Firstly, increasing the travellers in each vehicle. In and around the larger cities we already have some measures implemented, but these could be greatly magnified. Tax reliefs when passing tollbooths and cheaper central government regulated parking for cars, that travel with two or more passengers during rush hour, could lead to fewer cars on the road. Another measure is a cheaper and larger public transportation network, in combination with more bike-paths, achieved thru substitutions and regulations. An efficient and grand public transportation network could also decrease the usage of commercial vehicles and domestic aviation. In commercial transportation of goods, better planning could result in one truck delivering to more than one company each trip. Furthermore, could heavier taxation of commercial road usage lead to more companies choosing trains and ships instead of trucks and road trains.

Hopefully we will see a sustainable transportation, whether with or without biofuels, in the future.
Bibliografi
BusinessDictionary, 2015. Biofuel: Definition. [Internett]
Available at: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/biofuel.html
[Funnet 17 4 2017].
Helgesen, V., 2016. Norge skal kutte utslipp av klimagasser. Oslo: Klima- og miljødepartementet.
Miljødirektoratet, 2017. Klimagassutslipp fra transport. [Internett]
Available at: http://www.miljostatus.no/tema/klima/norske-klimagassutslipp/utslipp-av-klimagasser-fra-transport/
[Funnet 10 3 2017].
Stefanini, S. & Saeed, S., 2016. The good and the bad of biofuels. [Internett]
Available at: http://www.politico.eu/article/the-good-and-the-bad-of-biofuels-first-second-generation-wood-crop-waste/
[Funnet 17 4 2017].
Steinmetz, G., 2016. Feeding the World. [Internett]
Available at: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-billion/
[Funnet 17 4 2017].

Is the future edible?

by Fawziyya

Plastic waste from food and water packaging poses a major threat to the environment. People are coming up with creative solutions to the problem, developing alternative packaging that is more eco-friendly and in some cases even edible. But, will these solutions catch on?

One such company trying to replace plastic water bottles is Ooho. You might have heard about them a few years ago. Ooho works similar to a water balloon, storing water in a clear, edible membrane derived from seaweed. The container is compostable and doesn’t have to be consumed, but it can be. The link above shows a demonstration of how water is consumed using Ooho compared to a water bottle. Each orb of water (Ooho) costs about 2 cents to make through a technique called spherification. Their product is ideal for outdoor events (i.e. festivals, marathons) and cafes where many people consume drinks in a short amount of time.

Do you think Ooho will ever replace water bottles in these markets?

Another company trying to replace food packaging is Wikicells. They package food and drinks in an edible skin, similar to a grape. The skins are made from natural food particles and are held together by ions. Like the Ooho, the skins are edible and biodegradable. They’ve already been introduced at Whole Foods, an organic market, in the US.

What challenges do you see in these designs? Would you consume edible food packaging?

Sources:

Discovery <http://www.discovery.com/dscovrd/tech/meet-ooho-the-edible-plastic-free-water-bottle/?

National Geographic: <http://theplate.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/21/food-packaging-have-your-cake-and-eat-the-wrapper-too/&gt;

Wikicells <http://www.davidideas.com/details/wikicells&gt;

FastCompany <https://www.fastcompany.com/1679388/in-the-future-you-will-eat-your-food-packaging-and-it-will-be-delicious&gt; and <https://www.fastcompany.com/40403025/this-edible-water-bottle-is-how-youll-drink-in-the-future&gt;

MOOCs and the future of education

by Kadir and Vladislav

Wake up, take a shower, have a breakfast, wear clothes, buy a ticket, take the bus to school and charge the laptop before the professor arrives to classroom. A routine that is repeated by millions of students today. Hence, this is only a process that we are able to empathise in our developed world view. The energy, time and resources spent for provision of education in the world is subject of a greater discussion. Yet, the concept massive open online course (MOOC) bears a potential to overcome many of the challenging points in this issue.

To describe simply, people regardless of their age, gender, education level or financial income are able to learn a course through an online learning platform, by watching videos, reading articles and completing exercises supplied by educators. MOOC is becoming increasingly popular not only
among students, but also professionals who are willing to gain skills to achieve better results in their work environment. Furthermore, even though it was first recognised among developed countries, studies report that MOOCs are becoming increasingly popular in developing countries as well.

There are various aspects in efficiency that we, as learners and educators can benefit from MOOC. In recent years, more than 25 million people enrolled in to a MOOC. However, in Coursera (as it is probably the most popular platform for MOOCs) only 4% of the users managed to complete the courses that they have enrolled in. There might be a sign of inefficiency at this degree. Still, for
developing countries, whose citizens have limited access to education resources, this might be a manna from the heaven. Besides, studies prove that MOOCs are taken more serious by students from developing countries, as their rate of completion for courses are in much higher level. If one of these countries boldly decides to reorganise their education system, and acknowledge the time spent in online learning platform equivalent to what is learned in the classroom, it would be possible to measure the abbreviation that is received regarding the costs of education. Besides, it is likely to realise several benefits that can be highlighted at individual perspective:
• It creates a flexibility in daily schedule of the learner, as well as the educator. One would be able to learn and teach anytime during the day, and no matter where she or he is.
• Lack of concentration is likely to be prevented, since it is possible to divide lectures into shorter
periods, even to five minutes.
• Collective data of questions previously asked, lectures previously given and exercises previously provided are useful tools for the learner to strengthen the skills in this area.

Lots more to discuss in recognition of MOOCs and how it will influence the education in future. Shall MOOCs replace courses in primary levels of education as well? Is it possible to shrink the gap between developing and developed countries through online learning? Have pedagogues considered potential outcome of MOOCs in perception of learning for future generations? Be our guest to clarify!

Sources for further information:
https://hbr.org/2015/09/whos-benefiting-from-moocs-and-why
http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21714173-alternative-providers-education-mustsolve-
problems-cost-and
https://www.irex.org/news/new-study-moocs-developing-countries-reveals-half-users-receivecertification
http://monitor.icef.com/2016/04/mooc-learners-in-developing-countries-focused-on-careerdevelopment/

No Isolation – A knight in shining armor in the battle against loneliness?

by Herman, Mats and Espen

A common framework used when discussing the sustainability problems the world is encountering is “The Triple Bottom Line” which consists of the three Ps – profit, people planet. Although the media covering in much of the world focuses on the environmental problems (planet in the Triple Bottom Line) mainly, the world is also encountering sustainability problems within the other two Ps. In this article we are going to focus on a challenge within the “people” part of the Triple Bottom Line – a social problem Norway might have to deal with in the near future and a small startup’s efforts to contribute taking care of those challenges and at the same time become a profitable business.

“Only in Norway there are 6000 children suffering from long time illness, that means that one school desk in every forth classroom is empty”. These kids might be falling behind in school and they will also struggle keeping up with an already difficult social environment with social media and the social pressure the youth is facing today. Studies from the field of social psychology indicate that the social environment and social interaction play a huge role in forming us persons.

No Isolation, a small Norwegian startup founded in 2015 is looking at these problems as an opportunity to do business and at the same time contributing to minimize the social problems in the society. It is doing its part by helping people out of loneliness.
The problem is clear and No Isolation is taking the bull by the horns;
“Loneliness and involuntary social isolation are rising up as major cause for depression, anxiety, stress and premature deaths. We take loneliness seriously, and build tools for people in vulnerable situations”.

Its first mission was to reduce involuntary social isolation amongst children suffering from long-term illness by introducing a robot – AV1, which is a telepresence robot that enables children to participate in their daily life – despite their illness. The robot has a camera, a microphone, a speaker, and a way for the children to get the other students or the teachers attention. This makes it possible for kids to participate in the classroom or in other social interactions without being physical present.

Next on the agenda for No Isolation is to develop new technological solutions for seniors. It’s not only young people living “outside” of the society, the older generation is also suffering from loneliness due to their immobility and faster changing society in which they are not able to keep up with. Trying to make sure that every generation or social group is able to be a part in the society and live a life with people around them the company is dealing with social problems, and sets an example for others to follow.
No Isolation has good intentions, but are there only positive sides to this startup or is it also imposing a new challenge making the obstacle to go out and interact in the normal social life even bigger – in a time where social media connects people and human contact is fading – is the company contributing to make the social relations even worse – making it easier not to participate?

And how important is this type of sustainable business models compared to those who focus on the environmental problems we encounter?

Sources:
http://www.adressa.no/nyheter/okonomi/2016/08/23/Robot-i-klasserommet-13220822.ece

https://www.noisolation.com/en/about/

http://www.economist.com/node/14301663

ResQ your dinner!

by Kaisa

It is difficult for restaurant managers to estimate how much food they should prepare for a day because the amount of customers varies. Everyday a lot of good food gets thrown into the garbage. Restaurants in Finland throw out 20% of the meals they produce, which is approximately 80 million kilograms waste food every year. This food has gone through the entire supply chain, all of which effort is worthless. All of the resources (for example water, soil, labour, processing, storage and transportation) go to waste when food is discarded.

ResQ Club is a Finnish company which goal is to eliminate food waste and generate more revenue for restaurants. Many restaurants are interested in selling their leftovers instead of dumping them at the end of the day. With ResQ Club restaurants get new customers that wouldn’t otherwise come.

The main idea is that registered restaurants can sell their leftovers at discount rates via ResQ Club. Prices are often less than half of the original price. Restaurants can sell as many portions as they have. Sometimes it is only for example one piece of cake and sometimes more. After the proper lunch empoloyees in restaurants pack the leftover portions and put those in the fridge to wait for pick-up.

Consumers can discover and buy meals with application or online. Once consumer has located a meal he/she wants to buy it needs only few clicks and payment and then customer is able to go to the restaurant to pick up the meal. Customers can set their diet, allergies and favourite restaurants to their accounts which makes the process easier.

How does it sound to buy restaurant food at lower price? Would you like to buy ready to eat food instead of going to grocery store and start cooking after a long day? What is the worst waste food experience you have?
Read more: https://resq-club.com/

The plug-in hybrid “fraud”

by Håkon, Per Ole and Adrian

Regular petroleum-based car engines have been drastically “downsized” and made more efficient over the past 30 years, to a point where manufacturers may have found it hard to further decrease fuel consumption and emissions. Toyota were among the first to produce hybrids – though not directly chargeable – which has later evolved into so called “plug-in hybrids”. The concept of plug-ins is clever, we argue. The driver could now charge the batteries every time they park the car, which will then be used directly for the first few miles of driving the next time.

The problem is, however, that this is not eco-friendly or sustainable at all. These cars were made to look great on emissions tests, but in real life their CO2-emissions are the same or even higher than conventional petrol or diesel-based cars. Why? The huge weight increase. Batteries are heavy. Heavy cars consume more fuel. Let’s look at some data. A Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV has an official consumption (mixed driving) of 0.18 liters pr. 10 km. When the Norwegian newspaper Dinside.no measured its actual consumption over 200 km, they ended up on 0.48 liters pr. 10 km. That’s a 167% deviation.

There are plenty of examples of such unofficial tests with similar results and conclusions. 0.48 liters pr. 10 km. is not directly bad compared to conventional cars – but the problem is the massive cut of car taxes (especially in e.g. Norway and Denmark) which is based on official test data – leading consumers to buy cars that do not have low emissions after all. Manufacturers creates cars to perform well on these official tests – but not in real life. This is not about creating cars that are more sustainable. It is simply a way to make cars look good on paper. One could of course argue that such cars are a lot better for short distances or city driving, as they will use electric power for the first miles. But why would you need a large SUV for this type of driving? And would you remember to charge it every day? We believe that regular EV’s have a lot larger positive impact on the environment, such as BYD or Tesla.

Sources:
http://www.dinside.no/motor/ladbare-hybrider-dette-bruker-de-i-virkeligheten/60953664
http://www.acea.be/industry-topics/tag/category/emissions-testing

Solar roof – the future or just a theoretical wonder?

by Sindre and Filip

We’ve all heard stories of solar panels and how they potentially could represent a sustainable power source for the regular consumer in the future. But that’s what they’ve remained – stories. This might be about to change. Tesla and SolarCity have started producing solar roofs that promises to cost less than an ordinary roof when including energy savings, with tiles that supposedly can withstand up to three times the force of normal roofing tiles. They’ve even accounted for aesthetics, as the solar panels themselves are only visible from above, and the tiles looking like ordinary roof tiles from street level.

To make this a reality, Tesla and SolarCity has increased the solar panels efficiencies from the normal 10-15% to 22-24%. When paired with Tesla’s Powerwall 2 battery, this is said to allow the house to be partially powered day and night by the solar roof, giving 8.418 kWh annually on average. In Norway this would cover about 40% of an average family’s annual power consumption (SSB, 2014). The amount of annual power could also increase in the future as new innovations could increase the efficiency of the solar panels even further.

So do you think this could represent an actual solution for households around the world to be powered by a clean energy source, and thus representing a sustainable business model? Or does the arguably low efficiencies and other known issues like the amount of sunshine needed, still represent sufficiently high barriers for this to become a successful solution?

For those who are particularly interested in this topic, you can watch Elon Musk’s official introduction of the solar roof here:

Sources:
• https://www.tesla.com/solarroof
• http://www.solarcity.com/residential/solar-roof
• http://fortune.com/2016/11/02/tesla-solar-roof-details/
• https://www.ssb.no/energi-og-industri/statistikker/husenergi/hvert-3-aar/2014-07-14

Ecovative : Mushrooms are the new plastics

by Pawel and Antoine

Everybody knows about the negative impact that synthetic materials, as plastic or polystyrene, have on the environment. They need a lot of resources to be produced and once used, most of the time, they are generally end up in the trash when it’s not in the nature or oceans.
Ecovative is a biomaterials company created by Eben Bayer and Gavin McIntyre. The mission of the company is to develop, produce and market Earth friendly materials. This company provides sustainable alternatives to plastics and polystyrene foams for packaging and materials by using a mushroom technology.

Eben Bayer and Gavin McIntyre, the two founders of Ecovative, were originally classmates at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute located in Troy NY. It was during one of their course at this university that they developed together a method of growing a mushroom-based insulation. Listening to their professor advice, they pursue the technology into a company (Ecovative). They patented the method under the name of Greensulate®, and presented it during the Postcode Lottery Green Challenge of 2008. They won the competition and the 500,000 Euro Prize associated to the first place. It helps them to build their first plant in Green Island NY. Since then, Ecovative has grown steadily.

In 2009, Ecovative started to produce Mushroom® Packaging for customers like Dell. In 2012, the company completed an agreement with Sealed Air Corporation making them the exclusive licensee of mycelium based material technology in North America for packaging applications. The objective of this partnership was to develop the production and distribution of the Ecovative’s EcoCradle® Mushroom® Packaging. The year 2014 saw the launched of an engineered wood alternative called MycoBoard®. During the same year, the company also launched its Grow it Yourself program to encourage people to create their own projects and products from its Mushroom® Material. Finally as an important part of their development, the company opens a 20,000 square manufacturing plant in 2015 in order to increase its production of Mushroom® Packaging. Ecovative is now setting their sights on replacing manufactured wood products.

Ecovative uses two main components as a basis of their technology: agricultural waste – so called substrates (corn husks, rice hulls, etc.) and fungal mycelium, which is a vegetative part of a fungus. After inoculating the substrates with mycelium, the mixture is stored in shaped molds for 4-5 days, during which the mycelium grows through the plant fiber. The combined material takes the shape of the container it was stored in, and can be further compressed to increase its stiffness and durability. This results in a 100% natural, renewable and fire resistant material.

Ecovative uses its materials mostly as an eco-friendly replacement of plastic packaging foam and engineered wood (particle board). Since regular particle boards use synthetic resins (made from natural gas and some chemical components), the company not only saves trees, but also reduces the use of harmful chemicals. Both of the Ecovative’s main products are slightly cheaper than their non-renewable counterparts.

The main limitation of this technology is the required space. The mushroom needs a few days to grow, and storing hundreds or thousands growing products forces the company to invest in numerous warehouses. The technology also requires a supply of agricultural waste, therefore partnerships with local farmers are necessary. Other possible partners include furniture and construction industries, not to mention any company that is looking for a safe, protective and sustainable packaging for their products.

The company is actually planning to launch two other materials in the upcoming years: MycoFlex which is a new biopolymer material made entirely of mycelium that could be used as a replacement for all things cushiony like shoe soles, and MycoGrow which is a material that could be used as a seed starter.

How should Ecovative develop its business? By increasing its production internally or by developing collaborative partnerships and licensing their technology?

What other products/projects could this company develop in the future?

Sources:
https://www.ecovativedesign.com/
https://www.ecovativedesign.com/blog/154
http://ecovativedesign.blogspot.no/2008/10/ecovative-wins-500000-euro-prize-750000.html

Recyclable Building Materials You Can Grow Yourself

Turning plastic waste into future highways

by Anna and Mathias

Plastic waste is one of the biggest environmental challenges our society faces today. According to the UN, who recently declared a “war on plastic”, 99 % of seabirds will have ingested plastic by 2050. All ready, the numbers of species that are harmed by plastic waste are 600. Companies like the Ocean Cleanup have pledged to help, but this is surely not enough. A variety of other aspects need to be attended to, like international law, viable alternative products, the cost of plastic, recycling plants and reuse.

A new company that seems ambitious to profit on this, is Plastic Road. The company claims to have developed a fully functional alternative to asphalt roads, made of (you guessed right) plastic. Preferably recycled. The company claims that this will be an environmentally friendly alternative, as the roads are said to last three times as long, be four times lighter, 70 & faster to build and 100 & circular.

Regarding what happens after the expected lifetime of the product, Plastic Road claims that the build-up of the product makes it easy to recycle and reuse for new modular parts. But what about the particles that are lost from wear and tear? Plastic Road provides little information about the potential hazards of microplastics, as the release of this material into the ecosystem represents another huge challenge to our society. It is easy to imagine that heavy vehicles driving on a plastic road might create excessive amounts of microplastics, in addition to the ones already being created by the wear and tear of the rubber tires.

This problem in particular applies to all use of plastic, even that which have been collected and recycled or even reused in its original form. We can collect and repurpose waste, but can we do it with microscopic waste? If not, is the only viable solution to phase out the use of plastic entirely?

What do you think? Is reusing plastic in this manner a smart thing, or a detour on the road to a more sustainable society?

Sources:

http://web.unep.org/newscentre/un-declares-war-ocean-plastic. https://www.theoceancleanup.com/, (https://www.plasticroad.eu/en/). (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/microplastics-microbeads-ocean-sea-serious-health-risks-united-nations-warns-a7041036.html)

More plastic than fish in the sea by 2050

by Thale and Silje

In today’s society we see a strongly increasing trend in the usage (and wasting) of plastic. Plastic is a light material that does not easy decompose (Regjeringen, 2016). Plastic can remain in the environment for hundreds of years and harm animals and humans. Marine animals die because they eat or get stuck in plastic waste. Plastic breaks down into small plastic particles that can be eaten by small animals in the ocean, and can so spread spread pollutants when they after is eaten by larger animals.

Almost every item in grocery stores today is packed in plastic, even fruit that is going to be peeled anyway! A report by The Ellen MacArthur Foundation showed that if the usage of plastic keep increasing, there will be more plastic than fish in the sea by the year 2050 (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). This is comparable to one truck filled with plastic dumping it in to the sea every minute. These facts are disturbing and makes it clear that something has to happen immediately. Is it not enough to improve today’s system and reduce usage, but we have to think in an entirely new way that engages on every level in society. We have to make recycling principles an integrated part of people’s everyday life, and the strategy of every business.

Today, only about 5 % of the plastic is efficiently recycled, despite the fact that there is high demand for recycling options. In their report, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation talks about “The New Plastics Economy” that works towards a system that is going to increase recycling on world basis to 70% in 2050 from today’s 14% (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). This recycling system is aligned with the principles of the circular economy as talked about by Jørgensen (Jørgensen & Pedersen, 2013).

The first strategy of the system is to redesign and innovate products that contain smaller plastic parts – for example lids and candy wrap paper. These small parts are rarely recirculated, and often end up in nature (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). It is also important to make it more economically attractive with reuse of plastic packaging – the lighter and thinner forms of plastic. In addition to increased reuse, recycling of plastic packaging is a great improvement area.

What do you think? What is the best way to reduce the using of plastic?
What can you do to reduce the wasting and usage of plastic?
Sources
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2017, January 20). The New Plastics Economy: Catalysing action. Retrieved from Ellen MacArthur Foundation: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/new-plastics-economy-catalysing-action

Ellen MacArthur, D., Samans, R., Waughray, D., & Stuchtey, P. D. (2017, January 13). Catalysing action . Retrieved from The New Plastics Economy: https://newplasticseconomy.org/

Jørgensen, S., & Pedersen, L. J. (2013). Ansvarlig og lønnsom: strategier for ansvarlige forretningsmodeller. Cappelen Damm AS.

Regjeringen. (2016, May). Marin forsøpling og mikroplast . Retrieved from Klima og Miljø: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/klima-og-miljo/forurensning/innsiktsartikler-forurensning/marin-forsopling-og-mikroplast/id2339872/