World is Green

Valerie Khoo writes the Enterprise Blog at The Age. She seems to have a wonderful grasp of what a small business needs.

In one post she asks whether a small business owner wanted to leave a legacy.

Small business is generally not considered a major problem or part of the solution in the greening area. However, with a little over 90% of companies in Australia categorized as small business they can make a huge difference.

Valerie suggests to go green, carbon neutral, checking on suppliers and outright donations to charities. Another aspect was to become a social enterprise.

Since a small business is generally run by a entrepreneur this could a personal issue and which is where the legacy aspect comes in. This could be a strong reason to go green.

Joel Makower writes a enlightened post about the “green washing” of organizations.

Greenwashing is “what corporations do when they try to make themselves look more environmentally friendly than they really are,” in the words of the watchdog group Sourcewatch.

Do BP’s, or Wal-mart’s, or GE’s green initiatives render them benevolent leaders or malevolent greenwashers? You can find passionate opinion claiming both.

And while it’s generally good that we maintain high standards for companies’ seeking to claim environmental leadership, I can’t help but ponder the hypocrisy of it all: how much more we expect of companies than of ourselves.

When I speak to audiences about the greening of business — nearly every week these days, or so it seems — I often conduct an informal poll to see how audience members behave in their personal lives: how many drive hybrids or carpool to work, or are simply driving less; how many have installed solar panels or purchase green energy for their homes; how many use organic or low-toxic gardening techniques; how many seek out locally produced goods; how many have taken the basic measures at home — have installed energy-efficient light bulbs and appliances, water-saving devices, insulation and weatherstripping, and the like.

Some audiences are more tentative than others in volunteering answers, but even the most enthusiastic groups tend to have only a handful of members who appear to taking more than a few token actions.

I’m not for a minute suggesting that companies be let off the hook. As I’ve said, they need to be held to high standards, especially those making green claims. But all of this begs a question that I’ve been asking audiences and discussing with hundreds of people over the past couple of years: What must a company do to be considered “green”? What is the minimum level of policies, programs, performance, and progress that a company must exhibit to be seen as green?

As we watch and read these stories and, perhaps, proffer some inner expression of support — “Attaboy! Nail those bastards!” — it may well be worth committing a split second or two to self-reflection: “Am I really doing all that I can to address the environmental problems that concern me most?” “Do I profess one thing and do another?” “Do my friends think I’m greener than I really am?” “Am I holding others to a higher standard than myself?”

And, in the process, perhaps acknowledge that there is, indeed, a little greenwasher in all of us.

GeoDynamics Ltd is focused on the development of zero emissions, renewable energy generation from hot fractured rocks (HFR) in Australia.

The Company’s CEO says “The granite is hot because of the natural nuclear activity in there - it’s green nuclear,”

The company plans to pipe high-pressure hot water from the granite bedrock four kilometres beneath the Queensland-South Australia border, where the slow decay of potassium, thorium and uranium generates temperatures as high as 300 degrees.

Dr Williams expects the company to send electricity to the national power grid by 2010 and later directly to western Sydney. By 2015, it could produce as much electricity as the Snowy Mountains hydro scheme.

“There’s enough energy to run the country for thousands of years,” said Prame Chopra, a scientist who sits on the Geodynamics board. According to a conservative estimate by the Centre for International Economics, Australia has enough geothermal energy to meet electricity consumption for 450 years.

Australia is home to all of the world’s six listed hot fractured rock geothermal energy companies. One, Petratherm, recently signed a memorandum of understanding to supply geothermal electricity to South Australia’s Beverley uranium mine by late 2009.

Torrens Energy, which listed on the stock exchange three weeks ago, is exploring hot sites near Adelaide.

Geodynamic, assisted by $11.8 million in federal grants, said it would produce one megawatt of electricity for about $45 an hour - compared with coal power of about $35.

The Prime Minister’s taskforce on nuclear energy estimated the cost of nuclear energy at $40-$65, “clean coal” at $50-$100 and photovoltaic solar energy as high as $120.

The beauty here is that if the technology is proved then a small carbon price is enough to make this viable. The prospect of atleast 450 years of energy for Australia is exciting.

Recently, Torrens Energy debuted in the ASX at a 75 per cent premium to its offer price of 20 cents a share with promise of No fuel, no emissions, no waste.

A recent MIT study backed “heat mining” as a key energy source for the US.

The study shows that drilling several wells to reach hot rock and connecting them to a fractured rock region that has been stimulated to let water flow through it creates a heat-exchanger that can produce large amounts of hot water or steam to run electric generators at the surface. Unlike conventional fossil-fuel power plants that burn coal, natural gas or oil, no fuel would be required. And unlike wind and solar systems, a geothermal plant works night and day, offering a non-interruptible source of electric power.

… “This environmental advantage is due to low emissions and the small overall footprint of the entire geothermal system, which results because energy capture and extraction is contained entirely underground, and the surface equipment needed for conversion to electricity is relatively compact,” [Jefferson W.] Tester [the H. P. Meissner Professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT] said.