Nanotechnology could be seen as a “Friend of the Earth,” since it’s an aid to green energy applications from solar panels and wind turbines to batteries for electric cars. But the group called Friends of the Earth (FOE) doesn’t see it that way. It has just issued a scathing report on nano climate and energy uses, calling them “overheated promises and hot air.”
The nanotechnology community says that FOE’s charges are a knee-jerk, outdated response. It’s a rather bitter war of words.
FOE: “Many of the claims made regarding nanotechnology’s environmental performance, and breakthroughs touted by companies claiming to be near market, are not matched by reality. Worse, the energy and environmental costs of the growing nano industry are far higher than expected.”
NanoBusiness Alliance: “It is deeply disappointing to see a group that is supposed to be pro-environment carelessly writing off an entire class of promising, environmentally friendly technology with broad brush strokes.”
(See our earlier report on the study here.)
Nanotech exploits the often amazing properties of incredibly small particles to develop new medicines and consumer super-products. While FOE does concede that nanotech “has the potential to deliver novel approaches to the methods by which we harness, use and store energy,” it concludes, “This technology will come at a huge energy and broader environmental cost.” The report offers detailed critiques of nano uses in many different green energy applications:
Solar. Nanotech enables the use of thin film solar panels that can be stored on rollers and used in some building applications that would be challenging for traditional solar. These flexible panels can also be attached to moving objects, such as suitcases or computers. Some thin film panels have been produced at less cost than comparable silicon panels, but FOE reports that recent large-scale Chinese investment in silicon has reduced costs.
Also, the solar conversion efficiency of nano-based panels is six to 13 percent less than silicon, and the estimated lifespan of some types (dye-sensitized panels and fullerene-based organic panels) is significantly less, too.
FOE is also concerned that nano materials used in solar applications contain toxic heavy metals, such as cadmium that “could be transferred along food chains, could bio-accumulate, or even bio-magnify…”
Wind. Although such applications are not yet widespread, carbon nanofibers and nanotubes are used to make coatings that strengthen turbine blades and give them longer life. Potential energy savings across the lifecycle of the blades ranges from “insignificant to substantial.” FOE said. Nano-lubricants also promise to reduce friction in rotating blades, further extending useful life.
But, as in solar applications, FOE cautions that exposure to toxic elements in carbon nanotubes can make people sick, and it reports that studies have linked exposure to some types of tubes “can cause mesothelioma, the deadly disease associated with asbestos exposure.”
Hydrogen/Fuel Cells. Early-stage research cited in a United Nations report shows that nano technology could bring down costs to generate and store hydrogen, and also reduce costs and improve effectiveness of the fuel cells that run on this ubiquitous energy carrier. Hydrogen is difficult to store and move, so nano-engineered lithium-ion batteries can serve as a backup storage medium. And research is ongoing on metal and chemical hydrides that could be used in physical bonds with hydrogen that would allow the making of suitcase-sized “hydrogen batteries” to power cars.
Nano processes may someday be able to cut fuel-cell costs by reducing the amount of precious metal platinum catalyst they require. FOE’s analysis is critical of the short-term prospects for hydrogen vehicles, and their mass deployment in the next few years is indeed unlikely. But the first fuel cell cars will hit the market in 2015, although probably in very low numbers initially. FOE also cautions about hydrogen safety, though multiple safety devices will be installed in any fuel-cell car that reaches the market.
Lithium-Ion Batteries. There’s no question that nano-materials have enabled the development of more-efficient, cheaper li-ion batteries of the type now going into electric cars. Massachusetts-based A123 Systems, for instance, builds “Nano-phosphate” batteries for the Fisker Karma plug-in hybrid and other vehicles, and recently signed an agreement with China’s largest carmaker, SAIC. FOE says the use of nano-materials in li-ion batteries requires greater energy use in the recycling process. The group says the jury is still out on net environmental and cost savings, and it raises the specter of similar exposure risks to those that exist with solar and wind applications.
Vincent Caprio, executive director of the NanoBusiness Alliance, has faint praise for the thoroughness of the report.
“FOE has done a reasonable job identifying many areas nanotechnology can impact, with descriptions for various industries laying out both numerous benefits and potential risks,” Caprio begins.
Then he goes in for the kill. “But [FOE’s] topic-by-topic summaries generally ignore the benefits, and their analysis of the energy, safety, and environmental implications can only be described as naïvely simplistic. Despite advocating throughout the report for big-picture techniques like lifecycle analysis, FOE fails to consider the opportunity cost for ignoring the significant contributions nanotechnology has already implemented in environmental remediation, clean water and renewable energy. Also they show little understanding of the scale-up and commercialization phases through which emerging technologies go.”
Those charges could have a rebuttal, but we’re going to leave it there.
