 |
|
|
|||||
In South Africa, a field covered in yellow wildflowers doesnt look like an industrial site. But its a pilot for a new type of nickel mine: Instead of blasting holes in the ground to extract rocks, a biotech startup called Genomines is phytomining nickel through the use of plants that absorb the metal from the soil.The plant, a type of daisy, is known as a hyperaccumulatora species that naturally pulls metal through its roots and stores it at high concentrations in its stems and leaves. Using gene editing, Genomines made the plant three times larger and able to soak up twice as much nickel. The company, which just raised $45 million in a Series A funding round, plans to use its approach to scale up a sustainable, affordable supply of the critical metal.[Photo: Courtesy of Genomines]Its important because we need a lot of metal, especially for the energy transition in batteries in electric vehicles, says Fabien Koutchekian, cofounder and CEO of Genomines. Not only in batteries, but [nickel is] widely used in stainless steel as part of infrastructure. The problem is that with current traditional mining methods, we will not be able to produce enough.Its getting harder to find nickel ore to mine. Most of it comes from Chinese-run mines in Indonesia; high-grade reserves, used to make stainless steel, could be depleted there before the end of the decade. Lower-grade ore used in batteries might run out by midcentury.Nickel also exists in soil. But until now the concentrations have been too low to make extraction viable. The plants change the economics.The plants that we are using have the ability to concentrate the metal that they find in the soilthey concentrate it in their biomass, Koutchekian says. Weve managed to reach close to 7.6% metal within the plants.[Photo: Courtesy of Genomines]The companys pilot site in South Africa sits on land thats relatively high in nickel because of the way rocks naturally weathered in the area. That means it cant be used for farming, because other plants cant grow well. But its ideally suited for a phytomine.The crop grows within four to six months, absorbing the metal. Then it can be harvested, dried, and heated to produce battery-grade nickel oxide that can be sold and refined.[Gif: Courtesy of Genomines]Its inherently far more efficient than the existing system. Building a traditional, multibillion-dollar nickel mine involves not only a decade-plus of exploration, but another decade-plus of construction. Theyre the size of small cities, Koutchekian says. Once they’re operating, traditional mines also have to move tons of rock to extract a tiny fraction of metal.Using agriculture to get the material means that minimal infrastructure is necessary, and a system can be up and running in a year or two. Unsurprisingly, operations take far less energy than traditional mining. Since the plants also help capture CO2 as they grow, the whole process is actually carbon neutral. And instead of destroying ecosystems by blowing up habitat and creating new pollution, it helps remediate soil.Sustainability isnt the main motivator for its potential customers, Koutchekian says. Instead, they’re interested in cost: The approach saves so much energy that the product could be meaningfully less expensive than the status quo. The company expects to produce nickel oxide at around $10,000 per ton, versus an industry median of around $16,000 per ton (by the end of the decade, the average cost may rise to $19,000).With the new round of funding, led by the MIT spinout Engine Ventures, Genomines plans to use pilots to prove that its process is cost competitive. Then it will keep scaling up. The potential is large: The team has estimated that around 30 million to 40 million hectares of land worldwide contain sufficient nickel for the process. In theory, if all of that land was in use, the company says it could produce 7 to 14 times as much nickel as the traditional industry does now.
Category:
E-Commerce
Some major oil companies such as Shell and BP that once were touted as leading the way in clean energy investments are now pulling back from those projects to refocus on oil and gas production. Others, such as Exxon Mobil and Chevron, have concentrated on oil and gas but announced recent investments in carbon capture projects, as well as in lithium and graphite production for electric vehicle batteries. National oil companies have also been investing in renewable energy. For example, Saudi Aramco has invested in clean energy while at the same time asserting that its unrealistic to phase out oil and gas entirely. But the larger question is why oil companies would invest in clean energy at all, especially at a time when many federal clean energy incentives are being eliminated and climate science is being dismantled, at least in the United States. Some answers depend on whom you ask. More traditional petroleum industry followers would urge the companies to keep focused on their core fossil fuel businesses to meet growing energy demand and corresponding near-term shareholder returns. Other shareholders and stakeholders concerned about sustainability and the climateincluding an increasing number of companies with sustainability goalswould likely point out the business opportunities for clean energy to meet global needs. Other answers depend on the particular company itself. Very small producers have different business plans than very large private and public companies. Geography and regional policies can also play a key role. And government-owned companies such as Saudi Aramco, Gazprom and the China National Petroleum Corp. control the majority of the worlds oil and gas resources with revenues that support their national economies. Despite the relatively modest scale of investment in clean energy by oil and gas companies so far, there are several business reasons oil companies would increase their investments in clean energy over time. The oil and gas industry has provided energy that has helped create much of modern society and technology, though those advances have also come with significant environmental and social costs. My own experience in the oil industry gave me insight into how at least some of these companies try to reconcile this tension and to make strategic portfolio decisions regarding what green technologies to invest in. Now, the managing director and a professor of the practice at the Ray C. Anderson Center for Sustainable Business at Georgia Tech, I seek ways to eliminate the boundaries and identify mutually reinforcing innovations among business interests and environmental concerns. Protesters call for companies and international organizations to reduce their spending on fossil fuels. [Photo: Kent Nishimura/Getty Images] Diversification and financial drivers Just like financial advisers tell you to diversify your 401(k) investments, companies do so to weather different kinds of volatility, from commodity prices to political instability. Oil and gas markets are notoriously cyclical, so investments in clean energy can hedge against these shifts for companies and investors alike. Clean energy can also provide opportunities for new revenue. Many customers want to buy clean energy, and oil companies want to be positioned to cash in as this transition occurs. By developing employees expertise and investing in emerging technologies, they can be ready for commercial opportunities in biofuels, renewable natural gas, hydrogen and other pathways that may overlap with their existing, core business competencies. Fossil fuel companies have also found what other companies have: Clean energy can reduce costs. Some oil companies not only invest in energy efficiency for their buildings but use solar or wind to power their wells. And adding renewable energy to their activities can also lower the cost of investing in these companies. Public pressure All companies, including those in oil and gas, are under growing pressure to address climate change, from the public, from other companies with whom they do usiness and from government regulatorsat least outside the U.S. For example, campaigns seeking to reduce investment in fossil fuels are increasing along with climate-related lawsuits. Government policies focused on both mitigating carbon emissions and enhancing energy independence are also making headway in some locations. In response, many oil companies are reducing their own operational emissions and setting targets to offset or eliminate emissions from products that they sellthough many observers question the viability of these commitments. Other companies are investing in emerging technologies such as hydrogen and methods to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere Some companies, such as BP and Equinor, have previously even gone so far as rebranding themselves and acquiring clean energy businesses. But those efforts have also been criticized as greenwashing, taking actions for public relations value rather than real results. Fishing, like energy production, does not have to be done in ways that damage the environment. [Photo: Thomas Barwick/DigitalVision via Getty Images] How far can this go? It is even possible for a fossil fuel company to reinvent itself as a clean energy operation. Denmarks Orstedformerly known as Danish Oil and Natural Gastransitioned from fossil fuels to become a global leader in offshore wind. The company, whose majority owner is the Danish government, made the shift, however, with the help of significant public and political support. But most large oil companies arent likely to completely reinvent themselves anytime soon. Making that change requires leadership, investor pressure, customer demand and shifts in government policy, such as putting a price or tax on carbon emissions. To show students in my sustainability classes how companies choices affect both the environment and the industry as a whole, I use the MIT Fishbanks simulation. Students run fictional fishing companies competing for profit. Even when they know the fish population is finite, they overfish, leading to the collapse of the fishery and its businesses. Short-term profits cause long-term disaster for the fishery and the businesses that depend on it. The metaphor for oil and gas is clear: As fossil fuels continue to be extracted and burned, they release planet-warming emissions, harming the planet as a whole. They also pose substantial business risks to the oil and gas industry itself. Yet students in a recent class showed me that a more collective way of thinking may be possible. Teams voluntarily reduced their fishing levels to preserve long-term business and environmental sustainability, and they even cooperated with their competitors. They did so without in-game regulatory threats, shareholder or customer complaints, or lawsuits. Their shared understanding that the future of their own fishing companies was at stake makes me hopeful that this type of leadership may take hold in real companies and the energy system as a whole. But the question remains about how fast that change can happen, amid the accelerating global demand for more energy along with the increasing urgency and severity of climate change and its effects. Michael Oxman is a professor of the practice of sustainable business at the Georgia Institute of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
As of this month, 34 states and Washington, D.C., have policies aimed to reduce cellphone use at school, including complete or partial bans. One of the key figures who is credited with inspiring this movement is Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist and professor at New York Universitys Stern School of Business. In his book The Anxious Generation, published last year, Haidt makes the case that the rise in social media and cellphone use is a major factor behind what’s making kids more anxious and depressed. Research shows that in the early 2010s, the prevalence of mental health disorders among young people started to climb rapidlya trend that coincided with an increase in social media use among teens on digital platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat. At the Fast Company Innovation Festival in New York on Wednesday, Haidt pointed out that cellphone bans have been an easy win, because teachers already wanted the phones out of their classrooms. The teachers have hated the phones for 10 or 15 years. How can you teach when your kids are watching TikTok and porn? he said. Moreover, Haidt pointed out, kids are also worried about the impact social media is having on them. We’ve done a lot of surveys of Gen Z. They don’t like social media, but they feel trapped,” he said. “Fifty percent of Gen Z said they wish social media had never been invented.” [Photo: Eugene Gologursky for Fast Company] Haidts antidote to the damage that social media has wrought is based on four pillars: no smartphones before high school; no social media before age 16; no phones at school; and more independence, free play, and responsibility. However, when it comes to partial bans in schools, Haidt is lukewarm. While he believes they are better than nothing, he likens them to addiction treatments that go nowhere. With partial cellphone bans, he said, its as though we’ll take a whole bunch of addicts, and we’ll say, Eight times a day, we’re going to take your drug away from you. Then you can sit there for 45 minutes, thinking about the drug. Then we’ll give the drug back to you eight times a day. He also discussed how social media is linked to political polarization and, in turn, possibly a rise in violencesuch as the assassination of conservative activist and media personality Charlie Kirk earlier this month. I can’t say exactly what happened with Tyler Robinson [who is suspected of killing Kirk], but this is what’s happening to our boys, Haidt said. Boys in particular have been made to feel that they have to get rich quick or famous quick, otherwise they’ll lose in the mating game. He added: We’ve abandoned kidsand especially boys, who need guidance to go from boy to man. We’ve said, Nah, we’re too busy here. Just spend your whole life on Discord, TikTok, and porn. Haidts critics say hes inciting moral panic, similar to when each generation fixates on a harmful new technology that kids are using, whether its TV or listening to rock music on the radio. Haidt pushed back, saying that, traditionally, moral panic comes from the media. In this case, its the opposite. Why are parents so freaked out? Are they freaked out because Jonathan Haidt says it’s bad for your kids? he asked. Or are they freaked out because they saw their nephewthis fun, bright kidget lost in a web of porn? Or maybe their kid is five years younger, and they don’t want that to happen to their kid? Plus, Haidt argued, in the past, kids would fight back against moral panic. This time, they arent. They agreeor at least appear to. The universal thing that we hear when a school goes phone-free, he said, “is we hear laughter in the hallways again. The lunchroom is really loud.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||