Becoming Carbon Neutral

[engine]

Can we ever become carbon neutral?
Apple says it can by 2030.
Let's look past the corporate flag flying, and think about the possibilities.
If I buy an iPhone, how much of the energy to make it, develop it, deliver it to me, and product end of life is going to be carbon neutral.
[apple.com...]

Can your business become carbon neutral?

I'm nowhere near carbon neutral, but i'm making great efforts.
The first thing I did was to shut down any systems that are unused, and turn them on and off as necessary. Very little equipment is left on over night.
I print way less than I used to, and use electronic communications instead.
I installed occupancy detectors in rooms used less frequently.
I found a hosting company which claims better efficiency. How true that is is yet to be proven because many hosting companies say very little about energy efficiency.

It's not carbon neutral, but it's way better than it used to be.

Any other suggestions?

[not2easy]

I got a little gizmo (Kill-a-watt) that shows a reading of the watts being consumed by unused but ready devices. This was back a few years and there were plenty of things to turn off. Some things I allow such as the microwave because it wastes more to plug it in and set the clock so it will function than it is saves by unplugging it - and that little clock is handy right where it is. Our homes are full of 'always on' stuff and it is getting harder to buy unconnected equipment.

[tangor]

While the end consumer can reduce their energy use to some extent, you can't get rid of it unless living per-Industrial Age is a comfortable way to go forward AND continue to do business on the web.

Where "carbon footprint" needs to be addressed is at power production. NG is better than coal, Hydro is better than NG (unless you're an environmentalist), and Nuclear is the cleanest of all (regarding emissions, just has a secondary downside for storage of spent fuel).

Turning a light bulb off when you leave a room is commonsense, LED instead of incandescent can reduce consumption ... and every little bit helps ... but all of those little bits are about 1% OR LESS impact than the overall power needs/production of modern society.

Me? I run what is necessary, AS NECESSARY to get the job done, conserving where it makes sense. Example: the server runs 24/7/365, else I have no business. Gear that supports that operation (such as air-conditioning) continues to do so as well. But when I'm not in the office everything else is turned off.

As for iPhone ... I don't have a cell, never will, thus at that point I am "carbon neutral". Land lines or VOIP serves me just as well.

[brotherhood of LAN]

Avoid web pages that have lots of ads. They require a small power station and high-end CPU to run...

>I found a hosting company which claims better efficiency. How true that is is yet to be proven because many hosting companies say very little about energy efficiency.

Some of them mention a "PUE" number that indicates how efficient the data centre is. Looking at one that says 1.25 which means for every 1kW of server work done, another 250W is required for cooling etc. There are some providers that advertise themselves on the fact they use renewable energy.

Some of the French providers are competitively priced due to being powered by cheap nuclear

[engine]

Power consumption from non-carbon generated sources will make a difference, but we, as consumers, can't always build a wind-powered turbine/generator, or solar farm due to lack of space, etc., whereas a large company can do that.

I always look at the energy requirements of every electrical item i've acquired, and especially the standby state. Turning certain items off stops them from operating correctly, but some intelligent devices have a deep sleep mode. I'll use that if I can.

That 1W LED left on won't cost me much to run in terms of $. However, I also realise that if I leave a 1W LED lightbulb on, and everyone does the same, the demand on the power system is accumulated to require more power stations. The IOT is going to continue to put additional demands onto the system.

I do take an altruistic approach and realise that what I do has an impact, so I try to make it better for all.

Can I become carbon neutral? No, I don't think I can, not on my own.
It really does come down to the state and big business to do its part.

[Mark_A]

I turn lights off when I leave a room, I differ from my colleague who just turns lights on when he enters a room! You can see where he has been, the lights are all on! Grr

[graeme_p]

A lot of corporate (and governmental) promises are kept by greenwashing (planting trees that will eventually offset the CO2 if they survive their full lifetime) or by doing things that are actively harmful (like chopping down forests to grow biofuels).

There are huge environmental gains to reducing usage. Reduce, reuse, recycle - in that order.

[tangor]

Chuckles ... ordinary conservation, which has existed a few thousand years (you don't trash your 'hood and where you live) has become political.

Best I can do it keep my "area" clean. Meanwhile, I'm not about to give up the "wonders of electricity" and I suspect that none of you are willing to give up your cell phones, tv, cars, lights, air-conditioning or grocery stores (which require way more "carbon" to keep supplied, or the work force that keeps building new domiciles, roads, or people movers.

Forests are being routinely planted, etc.

But the silly is the current devil called "C OH 2" is what puts the phizz in your soda/beer/seltzer, is what makes plants grow (which produce oxygen) and is fully inert for other speculations.

If we were talking methane I might be more receptive ... but CO2?

That said, it is the current environmental theme and I agree that the environment needs to be protected ... but as noted above, I do that by not trashing my area and using only what I need when I need it.

Others will have different opinions, and that's quite alright!

[engine]

It's really quite simple: If we're not using carbon based fuels it solves the big problem we're discussing here. Of course, there are many more things to be done to reduce human impact on the environment.

Back to carbon neutral, for those in sunny environments, certainly in parts of Europe, solar capture is a thing. Theres a massive amount of energy coming from the sun: "173,000 terawatts (trillions of watts) of solar energy strikes the Earth continuously." Which currently equates to 10,000 times the world's energy requirement.
Efficiency of solar cells is relatively poor, so work needs to be done there. Thermal solar capture is a thing, and small scale systems work to reduce energy consumption. Scaling it up is the next challenge.

[brotherhood of LAN]

Where I live there's some days where the country's entire electrical requirements are met by renewables and it's projected to be consistently 100% in the near future.

Recycling of paper, plastics, metal and food waste is also mandatory, though enforcement doesn't seem too good. Glass still needs taken to a facility about 400 metres away from my home.

I work from home and don't drive. Mostly paperless billing.

Biggest issues I have atm is probably that a lot of goods have too much unnecessary packaging, I think there's a potential tax there to put that right.

And I smoke, but at least they'll plant another plant for everyone I consume which makes the biological side of it carbon-neutral. That's how I rationalise it anyways...

[engine]

And I smoke, but at least they'll plant another plant for everyone I consume which makes the biological side of it carbon-neutral. That's how I rationalise it anyways...

It probably costs more carbon the manufacture and deliver the ciggies. ;)

[brotherhood of LAN]

>It probably costs more carbon the manufacture and deliver the ciggies. ;)

Yes, no way around it... but the transport and manufacture will hopefully all be electric soon :)

fwiw they're also testing out hydrogen power up here on a small scale with the intention of it replacing gas for heating and cooking. The idea is to use offshore wind to create energy for the manufacturing process. The hydrogen can be safely stored at scale and then used to heat/cook on demand. It's being labelled as zero-carbon but they will need to have a new pipe network to roll it out nationwide.

[engine]

...testing out hydrogen power up here on a small scale with the intention of it replacing gas for heating and cooking.

I would have thought they'd use the hydrogen to generate electricity, or have i misunderstood.

[brotherhood of LAN]

They need to put energy into the process to create the hydrogen. Think one of the upsides is that hydrogen can be stored more efficiently than a battery

[bbc.co.uk...]

What it doesn't mention is (what I assume) O2 would be a by-product. Maybe in 100 years they'll have a global cooling problem.

[engine]

Ahh, I understand it now. They own piplines and want to make use of the investment.

[NickMNS]

@brotherhood of LAN

hydrogen can be stored more efficiently

Efficiently in terms of space and mass, but finding the right container for storing hydrogen is one of it's greatest challenges.
[fsec.ucf.edu...]

[brotherhood of LAN]

>Efficiently in terms of space and mass

I'm a Layman FWIW, but indeed there's some details that need ironed out. My understanding is it's preferential to current battery tech as it stands. Could be wrong.

It seems like we're not far away from green energy powering all our requirements, one way or another. Pros and cons to all solutions. All about the amount of energy put in vs what you get out, cheers Boltzmann, Maxwell et al.

[iamlost]

I have a number of dedicated managed servers in various data centres and the trend is definitely towards carbon neutral. I did an audit a few months back and overall was up to three quarters carbon neutral (some locations 100%), which is up significantly from a third a few years back.

Personally I benefited greatly from an environmentally aware mother. As far back as the 60s when I was in school (yes, I am not only lost but old).

The family home on the wet coast of BC is insulated reinforced rammed earth with earthquake mitigating features, a sod roof, windows from Europe (as what wanted not available in NA at time), geothermal cooling and water preheat, vertical (must play nice with birds) wind turbine, run of creek hydro, water 2-3x reuse and cleaned before discharge, radiant infloor electric heat, 10x air change with heat/humidity exchanger/filtration, slight positive interior pressurisation with ionising waterwall, etc. Built in the 70s, updated in early 00s. Yes, my mom was (way way) ahead of the curve.

Not every method is available to everyone, especially problematic for urbanites or renters, however the accrued value in quality of life and (over time) decreased maintenance and operation costs is significant. Plus good for the environment.

The funny fact is that just about every individual’s every environmental concern is already solved somewhere in the world. It’s a matter of collation and will. And funds. But typically only a third to half again as much as typical builds/Reno’s such that 5-10 years use pays difference after which savings keep accruing...

Of course we live in a next quarter world...

[blend27]

..(yes, I am not only lost but old)

Yep, Canada right?

[graeme_p]

Where I live there's some days where the country's entire electrical requirements are met by renewables and it's projected to be consistently 100% in the near future.

The UK? Yes, but those renewables include woodburning (cutting down forests) and biofuels (also leading to cutting down forests). Neither is good even just form the point of

Every option does some damage, and its very difficult to balance things out. Is it better to keep using a fossil fuel car and burn some polluting fuel or junk it and incur the environmental impact of making a replacement?

iamlost's family home sounds like the sort of thing we should be aiming for, but its not easy.

[brotherhood of LAN]

>UK

Scotland specifically [scottishrenewables.com...]

[RhinoFish]

Why renewables can't save the planet | TEDxDanubia
[youtube.com...]

[iamlost]

That video has two major mindset failings:
1. it views power through a utility grid focus rather than a dispersed network, ie it is captive to the past and existing frameworks.
2. it views nuclear without accepting costs of disaster, costs of fuel disposal, and costs of decommissioning and replacement of facilities, ie cherry-picks data.

In my mind the three greatest changes required to drive environmental growth are:
1. Altering how we design and build structures (building codes are decades past best practices. Heating/cooling requirements can be decreased 80%+ if we simply build smarter.
2. Altering how we incorporate heating/cooling ie geothermal for cooling and geo plus heat pump and/or vertical wind turbines and/or solar for water preheat, lighting needs and/or heat recovery etc. can decrease many/most buildings (residential, commercial, industrial) external energy needs by again ~80%.
3. Switching urban and transport vehicles to electricity (extreme rural and northern areas are not currently electric vehicle practical) significantly alters emissions.
Note: investment in large scale energy storage research and development is a critical missing component. For small scale I am partial to flywheels. :)

I doubt that the US will lead, unless there is a military twist, as central leadership/direction, even in research, is seen as ‘commie’. Hopefully the EU or Commonwealth nations can step up. If not I expect that China will, not an optimal outcome.

Nothing alone, including renewables, is a saviour. The solutions mostly already exist however they face entrenched interests that would be discombobulated. Without a series of kick in the ass disasters change will be individual rather than mass. We are our own worst enemy.

[tangor]

1. Changing infrastructure is expensive and decades away.

2. Nuclear costs are significantly less than the lost of arable land for wind or solar ... deccomission is multi-generational and uses a smaller environmental footprint compared to wind or solar (the latter filled with environmentally toxic materials), the other a danger to wildlife.

3. Until recharging meets 100% of all use the petrol industry will continue to exist.

At present the USA is the only industrialized nation that has measurable REDUCTIONS for "carbon footprint" in the world since the early 1990s. Some nations don't even make the attempt. (sigh) Not naming names, but pretty sure most know who falls into that category and continue to build more COAL FIRED power plants year in year out where the USA has been CLOSING THOSE DOWN and switching to the more "carbon neutral" natural gas since Obama...

HOWEVER, any reductions, anywhere in the world, are good things. More importantly is build to LAST power consumptive devices rather than the current disposable "economy"---where processed poisons are tossed into landfills each time you get a new cell phone (example).

[brotherhood of LAN]

>At present the USA is the only industrialized nation that has measurable REDUCTIONS for "carbon footprint" in the world since the early 1990s.

Source? Fairly certain all of Western European countries have a lower footprint than in 1990. Part of the problem in measuring it is that a lot of manufacturing has been 'outsourced' to China.

[engine]

Here's just one of the reasons why, as individuals using this technology, we will find it even more difficult to be carbon neutral.
Wireless chargers: [thenextweb.com...]

We're faced with technology not helping consumers.