Tag Archives: innovation

CHANGE = THREAT

Innovation is just fancy word for change that should take place in order to improve a situation or process. 

 

But in our minds, this is what we instinctively think: “CHANGE = THREAT”

 Why can’t we make small changes in our daily habits that move in a circular consumer pattern? Why is it so hard to make a conscience choice as a consumer? The old liner economic description of our purchasing habits is in the process of renovation and we must be aware of how and why! 

 

MAKE – TAKE- THROW system is the existing Linear Economic Model. Did you know that the average person in the U.S. throws away approximately 4.5 pounds of trash per person every day. And actually we have become much better at recycling in the last years! There has been a approximately a 34% increase in recycling since 1990’s. That is great news! 

 

So we are beginning to accept the idea and the importance of recycling. But sad to say this is not enough. There has to be revolutionary changes in the way we design, package, purchase and dispose of products. New ideas in the design of the actual products and their packaging is vital. A wise person once told me, “We can not keep doing the same things but expect a different result!”  This is where we can find advancements in the consumer waste dilemma. Cradle to Cradle (read more here) innovation and product design offers a new approach to the Linear product model. The idea focuses on changing the way we design our products so they do not have a negative environmental impact. Redesign, renovation and reduction of waste! 

 

Mountains of Trash

“Every year, Americans throw away the equivalent of 50 Great Pyramids worth of “trash.” The products and packaging that we discard represent staggering amounts of natural resources, including oil and other energy sources required to manufacture products from virgin materials. The health impacts of toxic chemicals used in everyday products threaten our health and the environment, and there is a disproportionate impact on low-income communities from the improper management of these materials

Circular Economics is the change that we are looking for! Here you see a diagram of the concept:

Circular Economy

Next a focus on food waste.

Maybe a good shaking is what some people need?

OklaHOMA
OklaHOMA
The seismic rate in Oklahoma is about 600 times greater than it was before 2008, around the time dewatering started in the state.
Just this week, Oklahoma finally admitted that “the cause of increased earthquake activity in the state was do to the injection/disposal of water associated with oil and gas production”‘ sited from a report from the Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS).
What’s crazy is that there are companies, scientists and people in our communities that are trying to develop and promote much better energy extraction methods but are getting beat down and ignored.
Old “crude” energy extraction methods  are being protected by the major oil companies to protect their investments. But what about the investments our citizens, our towns and our environment?
And even more surprising was the fact that in the same week, the state of Oklahoma passed state legislation to prohibit local bans on drilling. Does this mean that Tulsa County will be the victims of earthquake damage to homeowners/business owners property?
Will the oil companies take the responsibility for the damages already done in the OKC area? http://newsok.com/bill-passes-oklahoma-house-to-prohibit-local-bans-on-oil-drilling/article/5412766
A link to the Seismic Shift in Oklahoma article.
Thanks for sharing a post on Facebook  R Broderic Ballard and Zac King (two good guys from OklaHOMA) ! You have inspired me.

Vulnerability and Electric Cars, part II

Back by popular demand! Ha, just wishful thinking! The second half of my essay from my Level 3 Norwegian class this summer:

Tesla at the charger

ANALYSE AV ULEMPER VED ELKETRISKE BILER

Folk som er  imot el-biler kan hevde at resirkulering av batteriet i el-bilene utgjør en negativ faktor når man tenker på hvor mange og på mengden av forskjelige kjemikalier som er i bruk.  Om circa fem år kommer el-biler til å møte en ny utfordring med resirkulering og avhenting av kraftige batteripakker. Begrenset distanse kan bilene ikke kjøre uten å lade og vanskeligheter med å finne ladestasjoner på langturer kan virke nedslående for en sjåfør.  I tillegg kan det ta lang tid å lade opp batteriet fra et vanlig hjemmelading. Det finnes flere typer elektriske kilder som er i bruk, men mesteparten av elektrisiteten som er brukt for opplading kommer fra fossilt brensel. Statistikk fra den amerikanske el-bil Telsa, viser en oversikt som sier at  39 % kommer fra kull, 28 % fra gass, 19 % kjernekraft, 7 % vannkraft, 4 % vinnkraft og 1 % olje (Telsa Motor, Inc.2014:1).

Dårlig folkeskikk har utviklet seg og folk begynner å legge til seg uhøflige handlemåter når det gjelder å dele oppladingstasjoner. “Laderaseri” er det nyeste  uttrykket som gjelder i forhold til utålmodighet mot nabo og el-bileier ved ladestasjoner (Ingram 2014:2). Enkelte folk kan ha vanskeligheter med nye innretninger og nye virkemidler. Til tross for at man klarer å venne seg til ny teknologi, så er det mye å forholde seg til. Det blir til og med et nytt uttrykk oppfunnet på grunn av angsten man kan oppleve mellom ladestasjonene. “Rekkeviddeangst” ble en ny oppdagelse etter at en nybakt eier av en elektrisk bil skulle ut på lengre turer. Det går over etter at man blir mer vant til bilene sine og man lærer hvordan man må planlegge turene på forhånd (Ingram 2014:1).

Det kommer til å skje mye med utviklingen av elektriske biler i den nærmeste framtid. Patenter av el-biler har nylig blitt offentlig gjort og det kommer til å legge seg til rette for fortere og mer spennende utvikling.  Potensialet for forbedring innenfor mulighetene med teknologi er batterioppladingsmuligheter, varigheten av oppladete batterier, mengden av oppladingsstasjoner og gjenvinningsmuligheter for batteriene.

OPPSUMMERING

Med denne korte oversikten over fordeler og ulemper av el-biler kan man begynne å vurdere sin egen livstil, bevissthet for miljøet og grader av endringer vi kan venne oss til med tanke på en verden med bærekraftig kommunikasjon. Endringer med bilene vi kjører er en av mange vaner  og livsstiler vi må tenke gjennom for å leve på en mer langsiktig og bærekraftig måte. Kortsiktige kostnader må overveies mot langsiktig ødeleggelse for å ikke bruke el-biler. Har vi lyst til å begynne med små skritt og gjøre en bevisst endring i forhold til valg av kjøretøyet og ta vårt ansvar, eller skal vi la den neste generasjonen ta ansvaret for nye oppryddingløsninger og fremtidige alternativer? 

KILDER

Brundtland-rapporten; 1987:  “Our Common Future.”  Hentet fra  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Common_Future  (Brundtland: 1986)

Gordon, Jacob; 2011:  “5 Concerns About Electric-Car Batteries”  Hentet fra http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1176838&page=2  (Gordon 2011:1)

Ingram, Antony; 2014: “Will ‘Charge Rage’ Join ‘Range Anixiety’ As Electric-Car Owner Emotion?”  Hentet fra  https://autos.yahoo.com/news/39-charge-rage-39-join-39-range-anxiety-120012880.html  (Ingram 2014:1-2)

Randi Hjorthol og Jon Inge Lian; 2004: “Samfunnsmessige trender – betydning for

mobilitet og transport i storbysamfunnet”  TØI-rapport Oslo 2004  (Hjorthol og Lian 2004:1)

Shahan, Zachary; April 4, 2014: “Tesla has sold more cars than Ford in Norway in 2014” Hentet fra  http://www.treehugger.com/cars/tesla-norway-sales-ford.html  (Shahan 2014:1)

Tesla Motors, Inc.; 2014: “Your questions answered”  Hentet fra  http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric#charging  (Telsa Motor, Inc.2014:1)

TESLA GOES OPEN SOURCE!

This is not ground breaking proceedure for a company to release patent protection, but for a leader in innovation it sends a strong message. Tesla explains their decision in their blog just recently.

Tesla Motors was created to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay intellectual property landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal. Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.

Open source is a term that has gained familiarity regarding technology that has a higher priority on innovation than that of protectionism. I first heard about the concept while studying 3D animation. I heard a story about a disillusioned “inventor/coder” that sold his life work to a company only to find that the product would be misrepresented in an undesirable fashion. He felt so strongly about his convictions that he took the source code and put it on the internet to be used an improved by all who were interest and found that the software advanced by drastic improvements in a very short time frame. Now, that’s passion for you! Isn’t there a saying that, “if you love something, let it go…”?

What do you think Tesla was thinking when they chose such drastic options?

IMG_7620.JPG

RADICAL CHANGE or DISRUPTIVE CHANGE?

Here is an excerpt from a audio transcript on the two different perspectives of what drives change in behavior concerning energy alternatives.  I would love for you to let me know what you think about this topic! 

 

RADICAL CHANGE VS DISRUPTIVE CHANGE – Dr Steve Cayzer & Dr Carolyn Hayles

“…Well, in energy, I think we can probably put something in all of those four quadrants that we’ve talked about. In the incremental and sustaining quadrant, the bottom left quadrant, I would put improvements in efficiency of the internal combustion engine that powers our cars.

You see, over the past few decades, people have been making cars more efficient in terms of the amount of fuel that they need to travel. But this hasn’t fundamentally changed the architecture of the internal combustion engine nor has it changed our relationship with our vehicles.

That’s not to say it isn’t important. And in fact, those sorts of innovations are the bulk of most innovations anywhere.

But up at the radical end, I would argue you could put carbon capture and storage. This, as you probably know, is a technology that attempts to capture the harmful emissions from producing our energy from coal.

It’s radical because it’s still in development. It hasn’t been deployed to scale but it has huge potential. But it’s actually sustaining because it doesn’t actually change the structure of the coal industry nor the way in which we use energy that’s generated from coal.

Now diametrically opposed to that, I would argue something close to what Carolyn’s been talking about is the– just turning down your thermostat. What could be easier than that? It is almost the opposite of radical. But I would argue that just as we’ve been talking about with passive houses and people getting used to them, I’d argue that that is actually quite disruptive because it requires behavioural change.

It requires people to change the way that they live in their house. And as I talked about in Week Two, behaviour change is perhaps one of the most difficult sustainability challenges.

So is there something that’s both radical and disruptive in terms of energy?

Well, I would argue that what might fit up there is the European super grid because, if you think about that, the notion here is that we can have energy across Europe generated from renewable sources, primarily renewable sources, but of course, it overcomes the disadvantages of renewables being intermittent. So it’s not always windy where you want the energy but it’ll be windy somewhere in Europe. So you could export say wind from northern Scotland or perhaps some solar power from southern Spain to the areas that it’s needed.

But that’s quite radical in the sense of long-distance transmission of energy, perhaps energy storage, smart grids, not to mention all the political challenges. And it’s also, I would argue, disruptive because it changes the way that energy markets work, both nationally and all across the continent up Europe.

So I think we can sum up, can’t we, by saying that, broadly speaking, radical change requires technical innovation. But disruptive change requires market innovation.

Yes, and we’ve looked at both radical and disruptive change in housing and energy.”

 

© 2014 University of Bath 2,   Audio Transcript  https://ugc.futurelearn.com/uploads/related_file/file/2943/9eeda0bbc6e60997ee276e68e2b95ee7-SP4_4_3.pdf