Regenerative design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regenerative design is a process-oriented whole systems approach to design. The term "regenerative" describes processes that restore, renew or revitalize their own sources of energy and materials. Regenerative design uses whole systems thinking to create resilient and equitable systems that integrate the needs of society with the integrity of nature.

 

Designers use systems thinking, applied permaculture design principles, and community development processes to design human and ecological systems. The development of regenerative design has been influenced by approaches found in the biomimicry, biophilic design, ecological economics, circular economics. As well as social movements such as permaculture, transition and the new economy. Regenerative design can also refer to process of designing systems such as restorative justice, rewilding and regenerative agriculture.

Feedback loop used in regenerative design

A new generation of designers are applying ecologically inspired design to agriculture, architecture, community planning, cities, enterprises, economics and ecosystem regeneration. Many designers use the resilient models observed in systems ecology in their design process and recognize that ecosystems are resilient largely because they operate in closed loop systems. Using this model regenerative design seeks feedback at every stage of the design process. Feedback loops are an integral to regenerative systems as understood by processes used in restorative practice and community development. 

Regenerative design is interconnected with the approaches of systems thinking and with New Economy movement. The 'new economy' considers that the current economic system needs to be restructured. The theory is based on the assumption that people and the planet should come first, and that it is human well-being, not economic growth, which should be prioritized. 

Whereas the highest aim of sustainable development is to satisfy fundamental human needs today without compromising the possibility of future generations to satisfy theirs, the goal of regenerative design is to develop restorative systems that are dynamic and emergent, and are beneficial for humans and other species. This regeneration process is participatory, iterative and individual to the community and environment it is applied to. This process intends to revitalize communities, human and natural resources, and for some, society as a whole. 

In recent years regenerative design is made possible on a larger scale using open source socio- technical platforms and technological systems as used in SMART cities. It is an includes community and city development processes like gathering feedback, participatory governance, sortition and participatory budgeting.

History

Permaculture

The term permaculture was developed and coined by David Holmgren, then a graduate student at the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education's Department of Environmental Design, and Bill Mollison, senior lecturer in Environmental Psychology at University of Tasmania, in 1978. The word permaculture originally referred to "permanent agriculture", but was expanded to stand also for "permanent culture", as it was understood that social aspects were integral to a truly sustainable system as inspired by Masanobu Fukuoka’s natural farming philosophy. Regenerative design is integral to permaculture design. 

In 1974 David Holmgren and Bill Mollison first started working together to develop the theory and practice of permaculture. They met when Mollison spoke at a seminar at the Department of Environmental Design and began to work together. During their first three years together Mollison worked at applying their ideas, and Holmgren wrote the manuscript for what would become Permaculture One: a perennial agricultural system for human settlements as he completed his Environmental Design studies, and submitted it as the major reference for his thesis. He then handed the manuscript to Mollison for editing and additions, before it was published in 1978.

Regenerative organic agriculture

Robert Rodale, son of American organic pioneer and Rodale Institute founder J.I. Rodale, coined the term ‘regenerative organic agriculture.’ The term distinguished a kind of farming that goes beyond simply ‘sustainable.’ Regenerative organic agriculture “takes advantage of the natural tendencies of ecosystems to regenerate when disturbed. In that primary sense it is distinguished from other types of agriculture that either oppose or ignore the value of those natural tendencies.” This type of farming is marked by "tendencies towards closed nutrient loops, greater diversity in the biological community, fewer annuals and more perennials, and greater reliance on internal rather than external resources."

John T. Lyle (1934–1998), a landscape architecture professor saw the connection between concepts developed by Bob Rodale for regenerative agriculture and the opportunity to develop regenerative systems for all other aspects of the world. While regenerative agriculture focused solely on agriculture, Lyle expanded its concepts and use to all systems. Lyle understood that when developing for other types of systems, more complicated ideas such as entropy and emergy must be taken into consideration.

Regenerative design in the built environment

In 1976, Lyle challenged his landscape architecture graduate students at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona to "envision a community in which daily activities were based on the value of living within the limits of available renewable resources without environmental degradation." Over the next few decades an eclectic group of students, professors and experts from around the world and crossing many disciplines developed designs for an institute to be built at Cal Poly Pomona. In 1994, the Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies opened after two years of construction. In that same year Lyle's book Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development was published by Wiley. In 1995 Lyle worked with William McDonough at Oberlin College on the design of the Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies completed in 2000. In 2002 McDonough's book, the more popular and successful, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things was published reiterating the concepts developed by Lyle. Swiss architect Walter R. Stahel developed approaches entirely similar to Lyle's also in the late 1970s but instead coined the term cradle-to-cradle design made popular by McDonough and Michael Braungart.

Sim Van Der Ryn is an architect, author, and educator with more than 40 years of experience integrating ecological principles into the built environment.  Author of eight publications, one of his most influential books titled Ecological Design, published in 1996, provides a framework for integrating human design with living systems. The book challenges designers to push beyond "green building" to create buildings, infrastructure and landscapes that truly restore and regenerative of the surrounding ecosystems.

Green vs. sustainable vs. regenerative

There is an important distinction that should be made between the words ‘green’, ‘sustainable’, and ‘regenerative’ and how they influence design.

Green Design

In the article Transitioning from green to regenerative design, Raymond J. Cole explores the concept of regenerative design and what it means in relation to ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’ design. Cole identifies eight key attributes of green buildings:

1. Reduces damage to natural or sensitive sites
2. Reduces the need for new infrastructure
3. Reduces the impacts on natural feature and site ecology during construction
4. Reduces the potential environmental damage from emissions and outflows
5. Reduces the contributions to global environmental damage
6. Reduces resource use – energy, water, materials
7. Minimizes the discomfort of building occupants
8. Minimizes harmful substances and irritants within building interiors

By these eight key attributes, ‘green’ design is accomplished by reducing the harmful, damaging and negative impacts to both the environment and humans that result from the construction of the built environment. Another characteristic that separates ‘green’ design is that it is aimed at broad market transformation and therefore green building assessment frameworks and tools are typically generic in nature. 

Sustainable Design

Sustainable design lies within a balance of economical, environmental and social responsibilities

‘Sustainable’ and ‘green’ are for the most part used interchangeably however, there is a slight distinction between then. ‘Green’ design is centralized around specifically decreasing environmental impacts from human development whereas sustainability can be viewed for an environmental, economic or social lens. The implication is that sustainability can be incorporated to all three aspects of the Triple Bottom Line: people, planet, profit. 

The definition of sustainable or sustainability has been widely accepted as the ability to meet the needs of the current generation without depleting the resources needed to meet the needs of future generations. It “promotes a bio-centric view that places the human presence within a larger natural context, and focuses on constraints and on fundamental values and behavioral change.” David Orr defines two approaches to sustainability in his book Ecological Literacy: “technological sustainability” and “ecological sustainability.” “Technological sustainability” emphasizes the anthropocentric view by focusing on making technological and engineering processes more efficient whereas “ecological sustainability" emphasizes the bio-centric view and focuses on enabling and maintaining the essential and natural functions of ecosystems.

The sustainability movement has gained momentum over the last two decades, with interest from all sectors increasing rapidly each year. In the book Regenerative Development and Design: A Framework for Evolving Sustainability, the Regenesis Group asserts that the sustainability “debate is shifting from whether we should work on sustainability to how we’re going to get it done.” Sustainability was first viewed as a “steady state of equilibrium” in which there was a balance between inputs and outputs with the idea that sustainable practices meant future resources were not compromised by current processes. As this idea of sustainability and sustainable building has become more widely accepted and adopted, the idea of “net-zero” and even “net-positive” have become topics of interest. These relatively newer concepts focus on positively impacting the surrounding environment of a building rather than simply reducing the negative impacts.

Regenerative Design

J.T. Gibberd argued “a building is an element set within wider human endeavors and is necessarily dependent on this context. Thus, a building can support sustainable patterns of living, but in and of itself cannot be sustainable” Regenerative design goes a step further than sustainable design. In a regenerative system, feedback loops allow for adaptability, dynamism and emergence to create and develop resilient and flourishing eco-systems. Cole highlights a key distinction of regenerative design is the recognition and emphasis of the “co-evolutionary, partnered relationship between human and natural systems” and thus importance of project location and place. Bruno Duarte Dias asserts that regenerative design goes beyond the traditional weighing and measuring of various environmental, social and economic impacts of sustainable design and instead  focuses on mapping relationships. Dias is in agreement with Cole stating three fundamental aspects of regenerative design which include: understanding place and it’s unique patterns, designing for harmony within place, and co-evolution.

Fundamental aspects of regenerative design

Co-evolution of humans & nature

Regenerative design is built on the idea that humans and the built environment exist within natural systems and thus, the built environment should be designed to co-evolve with the surrounding natural environment. Dias asserts that a building should serve as a “catalyst for positive change.” The project does not end with the completion of construction and certificate of occupancy, instead the building serves to enhance the relationships between people, the built environment and the surrounding natural systems over a long period of time.

Designing in context of place

Understanding the location of the project, the unique dynamics of the site and the relationship of the project to the living natural systems is a fundamental concept in the regenerative design process. In their article Designing from place: a regenerative framework and methodology, Pamela Mang and Bill Reed define place as a "unique, multilayered network of living systems within a geographic region that results from the complex interactions, through time, of the natural ecology (climate, mineral and other deposits, soil, vegetation, water and wildlife, etc.) and culture (distinctive customs, expressions of values, economic activities, forms of association, ideas for education, traditions, etc.)" A systems-based approach to design in which the design team looks at the building within the larger system is crucial.

The Gardener Analogy

Beatrice Benne and Pamela Mang emphasize the importance of the distinction between working with a place rather than working on a place within the regenerative design process. They use an analogy of a gardener to re-define the role of a designer in the building process. “A gardener does not ‘make’ a garden. Instead, a skilled gardener is one who has developed an understanding of the key processes operating in the garden” and thus the gardener “makes judicious decisions on how and where to intervene to reestablish the flows of energy that are vital to the health of the garden.” In the same way a designer does not create a thriving ecosystem rather they make decisions that indirectly influence whether the ecosystem degrades or flourishes over time. This requires designers to push beyond the prescriptive and narrow way of thinking they have been taught and use complex systems thinking that will be ambiguous and overwhelming at times. This includes accepting that the solutions do not exclusively lie in technological advancements and are instead a combination of sustainable technologies and an understanding of the natural flow of resources and underlying ecological processes. Benne and Mang identify these challenges and state the most difficult of these will be shifting from a mechanistic to an ecological worldview. The tendency is to view building as the physical processes of the structure rather than the complex network of relationships the building has with the surrounding environment including the natural systems and the human community. 

Conservation vs. preservation

Regenerative design places more importance on conservation and biodiversity rather than on preservation. It is recognized in regenerative design that humans are a part of natural ecosystems. To exclude people is to create dense areas that destroy pockets of existing ecosystems while preserving pockets of ecosystems without allowing them to change naturally over time.

Regenerative design frameworks

There are a few regenerative design frameworks that have been developed in recent years. Unlike many green building rating systems, these frameworks are not prescriptive checklists. Instead they are conceptual and meant to guide dialogue throughout the design process. They should not be used exclusively rather in conjunction with existing green building rating systems such as LEED, BREEAM or Living Building Challenge.

SPeAR

Sustainable Project Appraisal Routine (SPeAR) is a decision-making tool developed by software and sustainability experts at Arup. The framework incorporates key categories including transportation, biodiversity, culture, employment and skills.

REGEN

The regenerative design framework REGEN was proposed by Berkebile Nelson Immenschuh McDowell (BNIM), a US architectural firm, for the US Green Building Council (USGBC). The tool was was intended to be a web-based, data-rich framework to guide dialogue between professionals in the design and development process as well as "address the gap in information and integration of information." The framework has three components:

1. Framework - the framework encourages systems thinking and collaboration as well as linking individual strategies to the goals of the project as a whole
2. Resources - the framework includes place-based data and information for project teams to use
3. Projects - the framework includes examples of successful projects that have incorporated regenerative ideas into the design as models for project teams

LENSES

Living Environments in Natural, Social and Economic Systems (LENSES) was created by Colorado State University's Institute for the Built Environment. The framework is intended to be process-based rather than product-based. The goals of the framework include:

• to direct the development of eco-regional guiding principles for living built environments
• to illustrate connections and relationships between sustainability issues
• to guide collaborative dialogue
• to present complex concepts quickly and effectively to development teams and decision-makers

The framework consists of three "lenses": Foundational Lens, Aspects of Place Lens and Flows Lens. The lenses work together to guide the design process, emphasizing the guiding principles and core values, understanding the delicate relationship between building and place and how elements flow through the natural and human systems.

Perkins+Will

Perkins+Will is a global architecture and design firm with a strong focus on sustainability - by September of 2012 the firm had completed over 150 LEED-certified projects. It was at te 2008 Healthcare Center for Excellence meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia that the decision was made to develop a regenerative design framework in an effort to generate broader conversation and inspirational ideas. Later that year, a regenerative design framework that could be used by all market sectors including healthcare, education, commercial and residential was developed by Perkins+Will in conjunction with the University of British Columbia. The framework had four primary objectives:

1. to initiate a different and expanded dialogue between the design team members and with the client and users, moving beyond the immediate building and site boundaries
2. to emphasize the opportunities of developed sites and buildings to relate to, maintain, and enhance the health of the ecological and human systems in the place in which they are situated
3. to highlight the ecological and human benefits that accrue from regenerative approaches
4. to facilitate the broader integration of allied design professionals - urban planners, landscape architects and engineers, together with other disciplines (ecologists, botanists, hydrologists, etc.) typically not involved in buildings - in an interdisciplinary design process

The structure of the framework consists of four primary themes:

1. Representation of human and natural systems - the framework is representative of the interactions between humans and the natural environment and is built on the notion that human systems exist only within natural systems. Human needs are further categorized into four categories: individual human health and well-being, social connectivity and local community, cultural vitality and sense of place, and healthy community. 
2. Representation of resource flows - the framework recognizes that human systems and natural systems are impacted through the way building relates to the land and engages resource flows. These resource flows include energy, water and materials.
3. Resource cycles - within the framework, resource flows illustrate how resources flow in and out of human and natural cycles whereas resource cycles focus on how resources move through human systems. The four sub-cycles included in the framework are produce, use, recycle and replenish. 
4. Direct and indirect engagement with flows - the framework distinguishes between the direct and indirect ways a building engages with resource flows. Direct engagement includes approaches and strategies that occur within the bounds of the project site. Indirect engagement extends beyond the boundaries of the project site and can thus be implemented on a much larger scale such as purchasing renewable energy credits.

Case study - Van Dusen Botanical Garden

The Visitor Center at the Van Dusen Botanical Garden in Vancouver, British Columbia was designed in parallel with the regenerative design framework developed by Perkins+Will. The site of the new visitor center was 17,575 m² and the building itself 1,784 m². A four stage process was identified and included: education and project aspirations, goal setting, strategies and synergies, and whole systems approaches. Each stage raises important questions that require the design team to define place and look at the project in a much larger context, identify key resources flows and understand the complex holistic systems, determine synergistic relationships and identify approaches that provoke the coevolution of both humans and ecological systems. The visitor centre was the first project that Perkins+Will worked on in collaboration with an ecologist. Incorporating an ecologist on the project team allowed the team to focus on the project from a larger scale and understand how the building and its specific design would interact with the surrounding ecosystem through its energy, water and environmental performance.

Regenerative design for retrofitting existing buildings

Importance and implications

It is said that the majority of buildings estimated to exist in the year 2050 have already been built. Additionally, current buildings account for roughly 40 percent of the total energy consumption within the United States. This means that in order to meet climate change goals - such as the Paris Agreement on Climate Change - and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, existing buildings need to be updated to reflect sustainable and regenerative design strategies.

Strategies

Craft et al. attempted to create a regenerative design model that could be applied to retrofitting existing buildings. This model was prompted by the large number of currently existing buildings projected to be present in 2050. The model presented in this article for building retrofits follows a ‘Levels of Work’ framework consisting of four levels that are said to be pertinent in increasing the “vitality, viability and capacity for evolution” which require a deep understanding of place and how the building interacts with the natural systems. These four levels are classified as either proactive or reactive and include regenerate, improve, maintain and operate.

Case Study

University of New South Wales

Craft et al. present a case study in which the chemical science building at the University of New South Wales was retrofitted to incorporate these regenerative design principles. The strategy uses biophilia to improve occupants health and wellbeing by strengthening their connection to nature. The facade acts as a “vertical ecosystem” by providing habitats for indigenous wildlife to increase biodiversity. This included the addition of balconies to increase the connection between humans and nature. 

Regenerative agriculture

Regenerative farming or 'regenerative agriculture' calls for the creation of demand on agricultural systems to produce food in a way that is beneficial to the production and the ecology of the environment. It uses the science of systems ecology, and the design and application through permaculture. As understanding of its benefits to human biology and ecological systems that sustain us is increased as has the demand for organic food. Organic food grown using regenerative and permaculture design increases the biodiversity and is used to develop business models that regenerate communities. Whereas some foods are organic some are not strictly regenerative because it is not clearly seeking to maximize biodiversity and the resilience of the environment and the workforce. Regenerative agriculture grows organic produce through ethical supply chains, zero waste policies, fair wages, staff development and wellbeing, and in some cases cooperative and social enterprise models. It seeks to benefit the staff along the supply chain, customers, and ecosystems with the outcome of human and ecological restoration and regeneration.

Size of regenerative systems

The size of the regenerative system effects the complexity of the design process. The smaller a system is designed the more likely it is to be resilient and regenerative. Multiple small regenerative systems that are put together to create larger regenerative systems help to create supplies for multiple human-inclusive-ecological systems.

Cradle-to-cradle design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cradle-to-cradle design (also referred to as Cradle to Cradle, C2C, cradle 2 cradle, or regenerative design) is a biomimetic approach to the design of products and systems that models human industry on nature's processes viewing materials as nutrients circulating in healthy, safe metabolisms. The term itself is a play on the popular corporate phrase "Cradle to Grave," implying that the C2C model is sustainable and considerate of life and future generations (i.e. from the birth, or "cradle," of one generation to the next versus from birth to death, or "grave," within the same generation.)

C2C suggests that industry must protect and enrich ecosystems and nature's biological metabolism while also maintaining a safe, productive technical metabolism for the high-quality use and circulation of organic and technical nutrients. It is a holistic, economic, industrial and social framework that seeks to create systems that are not only efficient but also essentially waste free. The model in its broadest sense is not limited to industrial design and manufacturing; it can be applied to many aspects of human civilization such as urban environments, buildings, economics and social systems.

The term Cradle to Cradle is a registered trademark of McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry (MBDC) consultants. Cradle to Cradle product certification began as a proprietary system; however, in 2012 MBDC turned the certification over to an independent non-profit called the Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute. Independence, openness, and transparency are the Institute's first objectives for the certification protocols. The phrase "cradle to cradle" itself was coined by Walter R. Stahel in the 1970s. The current model is based on a system of "lifecycle development" initiated by Michael Braungart and colleagues at the Environmental Protection Encouragement Agency (EPEA) in the 1990s and explored through the publication A Technical Framework for Life-Cycle Assessment.

In 2002, Braungart and William McDonough published a book called Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, a manifesto for cradle to cradle design that gives specific details of how to achieve the model. The model has been implemented by a number of companies, organizations and governments around the world, predominantly in the European Union, China and the United States. Cradle to cradle has also been the subject of many documentary films, including the critically acclaimed Waste=Food.

The current economic system, the current solution (the 3Rs), and the C2C framework as an alternative solution

Introduction

In the cradle to cradle model, all materials used in industrial or commercial processes—such as metals, fibers, dyes—fall into one of two categories: "technical" or "biological" nutrients. Technical nutrients are strictly limited to non-toxic, non-harmful synthetic materials that have no negative effects on the natural environment; they can be used in continuous cycles as the same product without losing their integrity or quality. In this manner these materials can be used over and over again instead of being "downcycled" into lesser products, ultimately becoming waste. 

Biological Nutrients are organic materials that, once used, can be disposed of in any natural environment and decompose into the soil, providing food for small life forms without affecting the natural environment. This is dependent on the ecology of the region; for example, organic material from one country or landmass may be harmful to the ecology of another country or landmass.

Biological and Technical Cycles

 

Biological and technical cycle

The two types of materials each follow their own cycle in the regenerative economy envisioned by Keunen and Huizing.

Structure

Initially defined by McDonough and Braungart, the Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute's five certification criteria are:

• Material health, which involves identifying the chemical composition of the materials that make up the product. Particularly hazardous materials (e.g. heavy metals, pigments, halogen compounds etc.) have to be reported whatever the concentration, and other materials reported where they exceed 100 ppm. For wood, the forest source is required. The risk for each material is assessed against criteria and eventually ranked on a scale with green being materials of low risk, yellow being those with moderate risk but are acceptable to continue to use, red for materials that have high risk and need to be phased out, and grey for materials with incomplete data. The method uses the term 'risk' in the sense of hazard (as opposed to consequence and likelihood).
• Material reutilization, which is about recovery and recycling at the end of product life.
• Assessment of energy required for production, which for the highest level of certification needs to be based on at least 50% renewable energy for all parts and subassemblies.
• Water, particularly usage and discharge quality.
• Social responsibility, which assesses fair labor practices.

The certification is available at several levels: basic, silver, gold, platinum, with more stringent requirements at each. Prior to 2012, MBDC controlled the certification protocol.

Health

Currently, many human beings come into contact or consume, directly or indirectly, many harmful materials and chemicals daily. In addition, countless other forms of plant and animal life are also exposed. C2C seeks to remove dangerous technical nutrients (synthetic materials such as mutagenic materials, heavy metals and other dangerous chemicals) from current life cycles. If the materials we come into contact with and are exposed to on a daily basis are not toxic and do not have long term health effects, then the health of the overall system can be better maintained. For example, a fabric factory can eliminate all harmful technical nutrients by carefully reconsidering what chemicals they use in their dyes to achieve the colours they need and attempt to do so with fewer base chemicals.

Economics

The use of a C2C model often lowers the financial cost of systems. For example, in the redesign of the Ford River Rouge Complex, the planting of Sedum (stonecrop) vegetation on assembly plant roofs retains and cleanses rain water. It also moderates the internal temperature of the building in order to save energy. The roof is part of an $18 million rainwater treatment system designed to clean 20 billion US gallons (76,000,000 m³) of rainwater annually. This saved Ford $50 million that would otherwise have been spent on mechanical treatment facilities. If products are designed according to C2C design principles, they can be manufactured and sold for less than alternative designs. They eliminate the need for waste disposal such as landfills.

Definitions

• Cradle to Cradle a play on the phrase "Cradle to Grave", implying that the C2C model is sustainable and considerate of life and future generations.
• Technical nutrients are basically inorganic or synthetic materials manufactured by humans—such as plastics and metals—that can be used many times over without any loss in quality, staying in a continuous cycle.
• Biological nutrients and materials are organic materials that can decompose into the natural environment, soil, water, etc. without affecting it in a negative way, providing food for bacteria and microbiological life.
• Materials are usually referred to as the building blocks of other materials, such as the dyes used in colouring fibers or rubbers used in the sole of a shoe.
• Downcycling is the reuse of materials into lesser products. For example, a plastic computer case could be downcycled into a plastic cup, which then becomes a park bench, etc.; this may eventually lead to waste. In conventional understanding, this is no different from recycling that produces a supply of the same product or material.
• Waste = Food is a basic concept of organic waste materials becoming food for bugs, insects and other small forms of life who can feed on it, decompose it and return it to the natural environment which we then indirectly use for food ourselves.

Existing synthetic materials

The question of how to deal with the countless existing technical nutrients (synthetic materials) that cannot be recycled or reintroduced to the natural environment is dealt with in C2C design. The materials that can be reused and retain their quality can be used within the technical nutrient cycles while other materials are far more difficult to deal with, such as plastics in the Pacific Ocean.

Hypothetical examples

One effective example is a shoe that is designed and mass-produced using the C2C model. The sole might be made of "biological nutrients" while the upper parts might be made of "technical nutrients". The shoe is mass-produced at a manufacturing plant that utilizes its waste material by putting it back into the cycle; an example of this is using off-cuts from the rubber soles to make more soles instead of merely disposing of them (this is dependent on the technical materials not losing their quality as they are reused). Once the shoes have been manufactured, they are distributed to retail outlets where the customer buys the shoe at a fraction of the price they would normally pay for a shoe of comparable aspects; the customer is only paying for the use of the materials in the shoe for the period of time that they will be using the shoe. When they outgrow the shoe or it is damaged, they return it to the manufacturer. When the manufacturer separates the sole from the upper parts (separating the technical and biological nutrients), the biological nutrients are returned to the natural environment while the technical nutrients are used to create the sole of another shoe. 

Another example of C2C design is a disposable cup, bottle, or wrapper made entirely out of biological materials. When the user is finished with the item, it can be disposed of and returned to the natural environment; the cost of disposal of waste such as landfill and recycling is eliminated. The user could also potentially return the item for a refund so it can be used again. 

Ford Model U is a design concept of a car, made completely from cradle-to-cradle materials. It also uses hydrogen propulsion.

Finished products

• Cradle-to-cradle shoes have been made through the Nike Considered project.
• The Edag light car
• Rohner Textile AG Climatex-textile
• Biofoam; a cradle-to-cradle alternative to expanded polystyrene
• Sewage sludge processing plants are facilities that create fertiliser from sewage sludge. This approach is green retrofit for the current (inefficient) system of organic waste disposal; as composting toilets are a better approach in the long run.
• Aquion Energy large scale batteries
• Ecovative Design packaging and insulation made from waste by binding it together with Mycelium

Implementation

The C2C model can be applied to almost any system in modern society: urban environments, buildings, manufacturing, social systems. 5 steps are outlined in Cradle to Cradle – Remaking the way we make things:

• Get "free of" known culprits
• Follow informed personal preferences
• Create "passive positive" lists – lists of materials used categorised according to their safety level:

The X List – substances that must be phased out, such as teratogenic, mutagenic, carcinogenic.

The Gray List – problematic substances that are not so urgently in need of phasing out

The P List – the "positive" list, substances actively defined as safe for use.

• Activate the positive list
• Reinvent – the redesign of the former system

Products that adhere to all steps can generally be granted a certification. Two certifications used for cradle-to-cradle products include Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and BRE Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM).

C2C principles were first applied to systems in the early 1990s by Braungart's Hamburger Umweltinstitut (HUI) and The Environmental Institute in Brazil for biomass nutrient recycling of effluent to produce agricultural products and clean water as a byproduct. 

In 2005, William McDonough helped found the Center for Eco-Intelligent Management at Instituto de Empresa Business School. The center's research produced the Biosphere Rules, a set of five implementation principles that facilitate the adoption of closed loop production approaches with a minimum of disruption for established companies. 

In 2007, MBDC and the EPEA formed a strategic partnership with global materials consultancy Material ConneXion to help promote and disseminate C2C design principles by providing greater global access to C2C material information, certification and product development.

As of January 2008, Material ConneXion's Materials Libraries in New York, Milan, Cologne, Bangkok and Daegu, Korea started to feature C2C assessed and certified materials and, in collaboration with MBDC and EPEA, the company now offers C2C Certification, and C2C product development.

While the C2C model has influenced the construction or redevelopment of many smaller buildings, several large companies, organisations and governments have also implemented the C2C model and its ideas and concepts:

Major implementations

• The Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies incorporates cradle to cradle systems throughout the center. The use of the term C2C is replaced with Regenerative.
• The Chinese Government is constructing many cities like Huangbaiyu based on C2C principles, utilising the rooftops for agriculture.
• The Ford River Rouge Complex redevelopment. Cleaning 20 billion US gallons (76,000,000 m³) of rainwater annually.
• The Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW) will make its laboratory and office complex completely cradle to cradle compliant 
• Several private houses and communal buildings in the Netherlands
• Fashion Positive, an initiative to assist the fashion world in implementing the cradle-to-cradle model in five areas: material health, material reuse, renewable energy, water stewardship and social fairness.

Coordination with other models

The Cradle to Cradle model can be viewed as a framework that considers systems as a whole or holistically. It can be applied to many aspects of human society, and is related to Life cycle assessment. See for instance the LCA based model of the Eco-costs, which has been designed to cope with analyses of recycle systems. The Cradle to Cradle model in some implementations is closely linked with the Car-free movement, such as in the case of large-scale building projects or the construction or redevelopment of urban environments. It is closely linked with passive solar design in the building industry and with permaculture in agriculture within or near urban environments. An earthship is a perfect example where different re-use models are used, cradle to cradle and permaculture. 

In 2005, IE Business School in Madrid launched the Center for Eco-Intelligent Innovation in collaboration with William McDonough to study the implementation of Cradle to Cradle design approaches in pioneering businesses. The academic research of companies lead to the elaboration of the Biosphere Rules, a set of five principles derived from nature that guide the implementation of circular models in production.

Constraints

A major constraint in the optimal recycling of materials is that at civic amenity sites, products are not disassembled by hand and have each individual part sorted into a bin, but instead have the entire product sorted into a certain bin. 

This makes the extraction of rare earth elements and other materials uneconomical (at recycling sites, products typically get crushed after which the materials are extracted by means of magnets, chemicals, special sorting methods, ...) and thus optimal recycling of, for example metals is impossible (an optimal recycling method for metals would require to sort all similar alloys together rather than mixing plain iron with alloys). 

Obviously, disassembling products is not feasible at currently designed civic amenity sites, and a better method would be to send back the broken products to the manufacturer, so that the manufacturer can disassemble the product. These disassembled product can then be used for making new products or at least to have the components sent separately to recycling sites (for proper recycling, by the exact type of material). At present though, few laws are put in place in any country to oblige manufacturers to take back their products for disassembly, nor are there even such obligations for manufacturers of cradle-to-cradle products. One process where this is happening is in the EU with the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive.

Criticism and response

Criticism has been advanced on the fact that McDonough and Braungart previously kept C2C consultancy and certification in their inner circle. Critics argued that this lack of competition prevented the model from fulfilling its potential. Many critics pleaded for a public-private partnership overseeing the C2C concept, thus enabling competition and growth of practical applications and services. 

McDonough and Braungart responded to this criticism by giving control of the certification protocol to a non-profit, independent Institute called the Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute. McDonough said the new institute "will enable our protocol to become a public certification program and global standard." The new Institute announced the creation of a Certification Standards Board in June 2012. The new board, under the auspices of the Institute, will oversee the certification moving forward.

Experts in the field of environment protection have questioned the practicability of the concept. Friedrich Schmidt-Bleek, head of the German Wuppertal Institute called his assertion, that the "old" environmental movement had hindered innovation with its pessimist approach "pseudo-psychological humbug".

I can feel very nice on Michael's seat covers in the airplane. Nevertheless I am still waiting for a detailed proposal for a design of the other 99.99 percent of the Airbus 380 after his principles.

In 2009 Schmidt-Bleek stated that it is out of the question that the concept can be realized on a bigger scale.

Some claim that C2C certification may not be entirely sufficient in all eco-design approaches. Quantitative methodologies (LCAs) and more adapted tools (regarding the product type which is considered) could be used in tandem. The C2C concept ignores the use phase of a product. According to the Variants of Life Cycle Assessment the entire life cycle of a product or service has to be evaluated, not only the material itself. For many goods e.g. in transport, the use phase has the most influence on the environmental footprint. E.g. the more lightweight a car or a plane the less fuel it consumes and consequently the less impact it has. Braungart fully ignores the use phase.

It is safe to say that every production step or resource-transformation step needs a certain amount of energy. 

The C2C concept foresees an own certification of its analysis and therefore is in contradiction to international ISO standards 14040 and 14044 for Life Cycle Assessment whereas an independent and critical review is needed in order to obtain comparative and resilient results. Independent external review.

Nanoremediation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nanoremediation is the use of nanoparticles for environmental remediation. It is being explored to treat ground water, wastewater, soil, sediment, or other contaminated environmental materials. Nanoremediation is an emerging industry; by 2009, nanoremediation technologies had been documented in at least 44 cleanup sites around the world, predominantly in the United States. In Europe, nanoremediation is being investigated by the EC funded NanoRem Project. A report produced by the NanoRem consortium has identified around 70 nanoremediation projects worldwide at pilot or full scale. During nanoremediation, a nanoparticle agent must be brought into contact with the target contaminant under conditions that allow a detoxifying or immobilizing reaction. This process typically involves a pump-and-treat process or in situ application. 

 

Some nanoremediation methods, particularly the use of nano zero-valent iron for groundwater cleanup, have been deployed at full-scale cleanup sites. Other methods remain in research phases.

Applications

Nanoremediation has been most widely used for groundwater treatment, with additional extensive research in wastewater treatment. Nanoremediation has also been tested for soil and sediment cleanup. Even more preliminary research is exploring the use of nanoparticles to remove toxic materials from gases.

Groundwater remediation

Currently, groundwater remediation is the most common commercial application of nanoremediation technologies. Using nanomaterials, especially zero-valent metals (ZVMs), for groundwater remediation is an emerging approach that is promising due to the availability and effectiveness of many nanomaterials for degrading or sequestering contaminants.

Nanotechnology offers the potential to effectively treat contaminants in situ, avoiding excavation or the need to pump contaminated water out of the ground. The process begins with nanoparticles being injected into a contaminated aquifer via an injection well. The nanoparticles are then transported by groundwater flow to the source of contamination. Upon contact, nanoparticles can sequester contaminants (via adsorption or complexation), immobilizing them, or they can degrade the contaminants to less harmful compounds. Contaminant transformations are typically redox reactions. When the nanoparticle is the oxidant or reductant, it is considered reactive.

The ability to inject nanoparticles to the subsurface and transport them to the contaminant source is imperative for successful treatment. Reactive nanoparticles can be injected into a well where they will then be transported down gradient to the contaminated area. Drilling and packing a well is quite expensive. Direct push wells cost less than drilled wells and are the most often used delivery tool for remediation with nanoiron. A nanoparticle slurry can be injected along the vertical range of the probe to provide treatment to specific aquifer regions.

Surface water treatment

The use of various nanomaterials, including carbon nanotubes and TiO₂, shows promise for treatment of surface water, including for purification, disinfection, and desalination. Target contaminants in surface waters include heavy metals, organic contaminants, and pathogens. In this context, nanoparticles may be used as sorbents, as reactive agents (photocatalysts or redox agents), or in membranes used for nanofiltration.

Trace contaminant detection

Nanoparticles may assist in detecting trace levels of contaminants in field settings, contributing to effective remediation. Instruments that can operate outside of a laboratory often are not sensitive enough to detect trace contaminants. Rapid, portable, and cost-effective measurement systems for trace contaminants in groundwater and other environmental media would thus enhance contaminant detection and cleanup. One potential method is to separate the analyte from the sample and concentrate them to a smaller volume, easing detection and measurement. When small quantities of solid sorbents are used to absorb the target for concentration, this method is referred to as solid-phase microextraction.

With their high reactivity and large surface area, nanoparticles may be effective sorbents to help concentrate target contaminants for solid-phase microextraction, particularly in the form of self-assembled monolayers on mesoporous supports. The mesoporous silica structure, made through a surfactant templated sol-gel process, gives these self-assembled monolayers high surface area and a rigid open pore structure. This material may be an effective sorbent for many targets, including heavy metals such as mercury, lead, and cadmium, chromate and arsenate, and radionuclides such as ⁹⁹Tc, ¹³⁷CS, uranium, and the actinides.

Mechanism

The small size of nanoparticles leads to several characteristics that may enhance remediation. Nanomaterials are highly reactive because of their high surface area per unit mass. Their small particle size also allows nanoparticles to enter small pores in soil or sediment that larger particles might not penetrate, granting them access to contaminants sorbed to soil and increasing the likelihood of contact with the target contaminant.

Because nanomaterials are so tiny, their movement is largely governed by Brownian motion as compared to gravity. Thus, the flow of groundwater can be sufficient to transport the particles. Nanoparticles then can remain suspended in solution longer to establish an in situ treatment zone.

Once a nanoparticle contacts the contaminant, it may degrade the contaminant, typically through a redox reaction, or adsorb to the contaminant to immobilize it. In some cases, such as with magnetic nano-iron, adsorbed complexes may be separated from the treated substrate, removing the contaminant. Target contaminants include organic molecules such as pesticides or organic solvents and metals such as arsenic or lead. Some research is also exploring the use of nanoparticles to remove excessive nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus.

Materials

A variety of compounds, including some that are used as macro-sized particles for remediation, are being studied for use in nanoremediation. These materials include zero-valent metals like zero-valent iron, calcium carbonate, carbon-based compounds such as graphene or carbon nanotubes, and metal oxides such as titanium dioxide and iron oxide.

Nano zero-valent iron

As of 2012, nano zero-valent iron (nZVI) was the nanoscale material most commonly used in bench and field remediation tests. nZVI may be mixed or coated with another metal, such as palladium, silver, or copper, that acts as a catalyst in what is called a bimetallic nanoparticle. nZVI may also be emulsified with a surfactant and an oil, creating a membrane that enhances the nanoparticle's ability to interact with hydrophobic liquids and protects it against reactions with materials dissolved in water. Commercial nZVI particle sizes may sometimes exceed true “nano” dimensions (100 nm or less in diameter).

nZVI appears to be useful for degrading organic contaminants, including chlorinated organic compounds such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and trichloroethene (TCE), as well as immobilizing or removing metals. nZVI and other nanoparticles that do not require light can be injected belowground into the contaminated zone for in situ groundwater remediation and, potentially, soil remediation. 

nZVI nanoparticles can be prepared by using sodium borohydride as the key reductant. NaBH₄ (0.2 M) is added into FeCl₃•6H₂ (0.05 M) solution (~1:1 volume ratio). Ferric iron is reduced via the following reaction: 

4Fe³⁺ + 3BH⁻
₄ + 9H₂O → 4Fe⁰ + 3H₂BO⁻
₃ + 12H⁺ + 6H₂

Palladized Fe particles are prepared by soaking the nanoscale iron particles with an ethanol solution of 1wt% of palladium acetate ([Pd(C₂H₃O₂)2]₃). This causes the reduction and deposition of Pd on the Fe surface: 

Pd²⁺ + Fe ⁰ → Pd⁰ + Fe²⁺

Similar methods may be used to prepared Fe/Pt, Fe/Ag, Fe/Ni, Fe/Co, and Fe/Cu bimetallic particles. With the above methods, nanoparticles of diameter 50-70 nm may be produced. The average specific surface area of Pd/Fe particles is about 35 m²/g. Ferrous iron salt has also been successfully used as the precursor.

Titanium dioxide

Titanium dioxide (TiO₂) is also a leading candidate for nanoremediation and wastewater treatment, although as of 2010 it is reported to have not yet been expanded to full-scale commercialization. When exposed to ultraviolet light, such as in sunlight, titanium dioxide produces hydroxyl radicals, which are highly reactive and can oxidize contaminants. Hydroxyl radicals are used for water treatment in methods generally termed advanced oxidation processes. Because light is required for this reaction, TiO₂ is not appropriate for underground in situ remediation, but it may be used for wastewater treatment or pump-and-treat groundwater remediation. 

TiO₂ is inexpensive, chemically stable, and insoluble in water. TiO₂ has a wide band gap energy (3.2 eV) that requires the use of UV light, as opposed to visible light only, for photocatalytic activation. To enhance the efficiency of its photocatalysis, research has investigated modifications to TiO₂ or alternative photocatalysts that might use a greater portion of photons in the visible light spectrum. Potential modifications include doping TiO₂ with metals, nitrogen, or carbon.

Challenges

When using in situ remediation the reactive products must be considered for two reasons. One reason is that a reactive product might be more harmful or mobile than the parent compound. Another reason is that the products can affect the effectiveness and/or cost of remediation. TCE (trichloroethylene), under reducing conditions by nanoiron, may sequentially dechlorinate to DCE (dichloroethene) and VC (vinyl chloride). VC is known to be more harmful than TCE, meaning this process would be undesirable.

Nanoparticles also react with non-target compounds. Bare nanoparticles tend to clump together and also react rapidly with soil, sediment, or other material in ground water. For in situ remediation, this action inhibits the particles from dispersing in the contaminated area, reducing their effectiveness for remediation. Coatings or other treatment may allow nanoparticles to disperse farther and potentially reach a greater portion of the contaminated zone. Coatings for nZVI include surfactants, polyelectrolyte coatings, emulsification layers, and protective shells made from silica or carbon.

Such designs may also affect the nanoparticles’ ability to react with contaminants, their uptake by organisms, and their toxicity. A continuing area of research involves the potential for nanoparticles used for remediation to disperse widely and harm wildlife, plants, or people.

In some cases, bioremediation may be used deliberately at the same site or with the same material as nanoremediation. Ongoing research is investigating how nanoparticles may interact with simultaneous biological remediation.

Idaho test reactor is pivotal in US nuclear power strategy

By KEITH RIDLER December 15, 2018

Original link:   https://www.apnews.com/0079d71260644413ace5e0ec1f360728?fbclid=IwAR14r43wfGcnJhU5kJt_w1mhlIuaKEuImFy8HPutupcyGAPthAaJGcWH2fM

This Nov. 29, 2018 photo shows the Transient Test Reactor at the Idaho National Laboratory about 50 miles west of Idaho Falls, in eastern Idaho. The facility has been restarted to test nuclear fuels as the U.S. tries to revamp a fading nuclear power industry with safer fuel designs and a new generation of power plants. (AP Photo/Keith Riddler)

IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY, Idaho (AP) — A nuclear test reactor that can melt uranium fuel rods in seconds is running again after a nearly quarter-century shutdown as U.S. officials try to revamp a fading nuclear power industry with safer fuel designs and a new generation of power plants.

The reactor at the U.S. Energy Department’s Idaho National Laboratory has performed 10 tests on nuclear fuel since late last year.

“If we’re going to have nuclear power in this country 20 or 30 years from now, it’s going to be because of this reactor,” said J.R. Biggs, standing in front of the Transient Test Reactor he manages that in short bursts can produce enough energy to power 14 million homes.

The reactor was used to run 6,604 tests from 1959 to 1994, when it was put on standby as the United States started turning away from nuclear power amid safety concerns.

Restarting it is part of a strategy to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by generating carbon-free electricity with nuclear power initiated under the Obama administration and continuing under the Trump administration, despite Trump’s downplaying of global warming.

J.R. Biggs stands in front of the Transient Test Reactor. (AP Photo/Keith Riddler)

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 98 nuclear reactors at 59 power plants produce about 20 percent of the nation’s energy. Most of the reactors are decades old, and many are having a tough time competing economically with other forms of energy production, particularly cheaper gas-fired power plants.

Some nuclear plants have closed in recent years, and Illinois, New York and New Jersey have approved subsidies in the past two years to bail out commercial nuclear plants. Officials in some areas are considering carbon taxes on coal and natural gas to boost nuclear power.

U.S. officials hope to improve nuclear power’s prospects. They face two main challenges: making the plants economically competitive and changing public perception among some that nuclear power is unsafe.

Biggs said Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster, caused by a 2011 earthquake and tsunami, was a primary reason U.S. officials restarted the test reactor in Idaho. The cores of three reactors at the Japan plant suffered meltdowns after cooling systems failed.

But what if, researchers say, nuclear plants produced energy with accident-tolerant fuels in reactors designed to safely shut themselves down in an emergency? That’s where the Idaho lab’s test reactor comes in.

Dan Wachs, who directs the lab’s fuel safety research program, said only three other reactors with fuel testing abilities exist — in France, Japan and Kazakhstan. He said none can perform the range of experiments that can be done at the Idaho lab’s Transient Test Reactor, also called TREAT.

“The world is suffering from a very acute shortage of testing that TREAT fills,” he said.

At the Idaho test reactor, pencil-sized pieces of fuel rods supplied by commercial manufacturers are inserted into the reactor that can generate short, 20-gigawatt bursts of energy. Workers perform tests remotely from about half a mile (0.8 kilometers) away.

The strategy is to test the fuels under accident conditions, including controlled and contained meltdowns, to eventually create safer fuels.

The tiny fuel rods, including those that melt, are sent to the lab’s Hot Fuel Examination Facility, where workers behind 4 feet (1.2 meters) of leaded glass examine them. Additional work is done a short walk away at the Irradiated Materials Characterization Lab, where powerful microscopes can examine the fuel at the atomic level.

Hot cell operators Dawnette Hunter, left, and Scot White manipulate radioactive material from behind 4-foot-thick leaded glass. (AP Photo/Keith Riddler)

Wachs and his team of about 15 scientists get the results and consult with both the fuel manufacturer and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which licenses nuclear fuel.

The 890-square-mile (2,300-square-kilometer) Energy Department site that holds the test reactor, about 50 miles (80 kilometers) west of Idaho Falls, also is the proposed location for an energy cooperative’s small modular reactors. The small reactors are intended to be economically competitive and safer than current reactor designs. Because they’re modular, additional reactors can be built as energy demands in a region increase, reducing initial construction costs.

While the Idaho lab looks to the future, the sprawling Energy Department site in Idaho’s high desert sagebrush also contains some of the nation’s nuclear past. The core from Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island nuclear plant was buried there after it underwent a partial meltdown in 1979 in one of the nation’s worst nuclear mishaps.

The Three Mile Island facility still produces energy, but its owner has said it will shut it down in 2019 unless Pennsylvania comes to its financial rescue.

Besides economics and safety, another problem for nuclear energy is what to do with the radioactive spent fuel rods. The U.S. has no permanent repository for about 77,000 tons (70,000 metric tons), stored mainly at the commercial nuclear power plants where they were used to produce electricity.

Idaho won federal court battles in 1990s to prevent the Energy Department’s Idaho site from becoming a repository for spent fuel and other nuclear waste. Other states don’t want it either.

“I think the Idaho National Laboratory is more optimistic about the future of nuclear energy than is warranted,” said Beatrice Brailsford of the Snake River Alliance, an Idaho-based nuclear watchdog group.

Still, nuclear energy has been identified by U.S. officials as having a key role in reducing the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.

“Nuclear is a primary way to get there,” said Wachs. “It’s really the only way to get there.”