As author George Monbiot wrote in his 2006 book Heat, conventional air travel is unsustainable, no matter how you look at it. The carbon footprint of a jet is immense, and his controversial solution for this problem is to curb our use of air travel. That would be a very hard sell for most people, but airship technology may provide a means to do just that.

Airships fell out of public favor after the tragic demise of the Hindenburg in 1937, having seen only limited recreational use in recent decades such as the ever-present Goodyear Blimp  floating silently over sporting events. Airship technology has improved greatly since 1937 however, and modern eco-friendly airships could replace fixed-wing aircraft for hauling cargo and passengers within a decade.

In a report by UK’s The Guardian, former chief scientific adviser Professor Sir David King stated that “massive helium balloons – or blimps – would replace aircraft as a key part of the global trade network as a way of cutting global warming emissions.” King says that “as a result, the helium-powered ships could be carrying freight – and even passengers – in as little as a decade’s time.”

Although airships are much slower than jets, traveling at  an average top speed of 125kph (78mph), they have much lower fuel costs and a carrying capacity much higher than a standard Boeing 747 jet. This lower speed and reduced fuel requirement has some people speculating that carbon emissions for air freight could be reduced by up to 90%. Airship technology, combined with increased use of clean fueled high speed rail networks, could rein in our carbon footprint to well within the guidelines set forth by Monbiot.

Although I don’t see high speed fixed-wing passenger aircraft becoming obsolete, I do see them as moving into more of a specialty realm, more like a luxury than the standard for long-distance travel. For the average person, airship travel may become a vacation in itself, with the possibility of luxury airships floating like cruise ships silently through the sky.

Guardian UK, via Treehugger

Alpha Energy of Bellingham WA, has completed one of the largest elevated solar PV arrays in the USA at a car auction facility in New Jersey. The 104,000 square foot installation, comprising over 5,000 individual panels, produces enough energy to power the equivalent of 114 homes.

The parking lot cover offsets the production of 1,900,000 lbs of CO2, which has the same effect as taking 158 cars off the road. The facility is designed to provide power for electric vehicle charging, as well as lighting within the covered lot. Because the system is grid-tied, it will feed energy into the power grid when the facility isn’t in use.

Alpha Energy

One of the biggest costs associated with electric vehicle technology is the batteries, and this cost has kept electric vehicles out of reach for many people. One reason for this is proprietary battery technology used by each vehicle manufacturer, an issue that could be solved by applying a technique used by most other electronics for decades: standardized batteries.

Everybody is familiar with standard batteries, many electronic items use the same AA or AAA batteries, regardless of whether they’re Energizer, Duracell or any other brand. The cost benefit of standardized batteries can easily be seen by comparing the cost of a pair of AA batteries with a proprietary cell phone battery pack.

If electric vehicle manufacturers agreed upon a standard for their battery technology, costs for the batteries would go down as more companies produced the batteries on a large scale. A standard battery design would also allow for universal charging stations to be built across the country, and even battery swapping stations where you could exchange your drained batteries for freshly recharged ones in a matter of minutes.

A common interface would at least allow multiple brands of batteries to work in the vehicle while still allowing for independent innovation such as adding ultracapacitors to decrease charge time and store energy from braking, or supply energy for rapid acceleration. As long as the battery module interacted with the vehicle and charging station the same way, any changes or upgrades beyond the basic standard would be completely transparent, quietly improving the vehicle’s performance.

via Treehugger

Hydrogen is generated spontaneously when water is added to pellets of the alloy, which is a mixture of aluminum and gallium. Aluminum has been used for a long time in chemical production of hydrogen, but the addition of gallium makes this alloy far more effective as a catalyst. As aluminum oxidizes, a skin forms on it’s surface preventing further contact between the aluminum and the water. The gallium prevents this skin formation, allowing the reaction to continue until the aluminum has been used up. The aluminum has a strong attraction to the oxygen in the water, and when water is added to the pellets the oxygen is stripped out of the water molecules, leaving free hydrogen gas as a byproduct.
This technology is being looked at to allow the conversion of cars and trucks to hydrogen, but the prospects aren’t quite as good as a first glance might suggest.

• Because the alloy is used up during the reaction, new pellets need to be added periodically and the waste materials need to be recycled.
• Internal combustion engines are only about 25% efficient so existing engines would require more frequent fueling than with hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles.
• Additional energy and effort is required to replace the pellets and process the alloy after use

However, using the pure hydrogen generated from this process, a fuel cell system would run at closer to 75% efficiency, reducing the previously mentioned problems by 2/3. Fuel cells have long been touted as being the ultimate in power generation for mobile uses, but the complexity, inefficiencies and cost make them remain impractical for general transportation uses when compared to the simplicity of battery electric vehicles for urban use. The technology does become far more favorable when used with fuel cells instead of internal combustion however. For general urban transportation, I favor solar/wind/geothermal powered battery electric vehicles, but there are several other applications for which on-demand hydrogen fuel cell systems would be ideally suited:

• Rural vehicles that wouldn’t have easy access to a charging station
• Emergency response vehicles that require operation at all times
• Larger devices such as lawn mowers, tillers, chainsaws, backup generators, cooking devices, etc
• Emergency power generation in case of a natural disaster

These applications would benefit from the ease of fueling (just add water!) and clean operation that on-demand hydrogen would provide. Because they would not be part of normal urban usage, the hindrances of the system would be minimized and would remain cost-effective.
Source: Purdue University

Billionaire Richard Branson, who announced last month that he was putting $3 billion towards anti-global warming initiatives, has issued a call to the airline industry for a 25% reduction in CO2 emissions. In response, or perhaps coincidentally, Canadian-owned airline WestJet has announced they’re now offering carbon offsets for flights booked through one of their corporate partners st no extra cost.
Branson’s proposals focus mostly on improving fuel efficiency with strategies that include reducing aircraft idling, and by using a tug to position aircraft on the runway prior to takeoff. So far one airline has responded in a big way; any WestJet flight booked through offsetters.ca will receive a free carbon offset for the flight. Previously, and currently for other airlines, a flight carbon offset can be purchased through a third party such as TerraPass for as little as $9.95.

WestJet has been a unique company in the airline industry since they were founded 10 years ago because they are non-unionized, a fact credited to the profit-sharing economic model of the company. With profit sharing (a concept explained in the excellent book Visionary Business by Marc Allen), what’s good for the company is good for the employees. In this case, the move will also be very good for the environment too.

Overall this is an excellent intermediary step in the progression towards fuel-cell aircraft, carbon-neutral aircraft fuels and other environmentally friendly flight options to help move us in the future.

Air travel is one of the most carbon-intensive activities an ordinary person can do, but Boeing is looking to change this by developing a light aircraft that is powered by hydrogen fuel cells. They hope to have their first test flight within 12 months, potentially making it the greenest plane to ever fly.

The aircraft chosen for the project is the Diamond Dimona, an Austrian (edit: fixed mistake) 2 seater plane selected for it’s light weight. The fuel tank has been replaced with a hydrogen storage tank, which feeds hydrogen into the fuel cell. The hydrogen reacts with atmospheric oxygen to power the electric propeller. The problem Boeing encountered was the required energy output to get a plane off the ground and keep it climbing under acceleration, this was addressed by installing battery storage to assist the fuel cell output during takeoff. These batteries would be recharged during flight. The estimated speed of this experimental flight would be a mere 70 miles per hour, far below the speed regular aircraft fly at. This is due to the limited output of the fuel cell, as well as it’s size and weight. It’s possible one day we’ll be able to ride in a fuel cell powered passenger jet, but this is is likely many years away. In the near future we’re likely to see biofuel-based aircraft fuel, as well as possibly the new Virgin Fuel being developed by Richard Branson.

Another application for fuel cell aircraft is being developed at Georgia Tech, who is experimenting with hydrogen fueled Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). The Georgia Tech project is testing a UAV with a 22 foot wingspan, that’s powered by a hydrogen fuel cell producing 500 watts. The applications being looked at with the Georgia Tech UAV include low cost alternatives to satellites, tracking hurricanes, border patrols and general reconnaissance. Environmental monitoring is also a possible application for this technology, and a more speculative idea is using UAVs to help mitigate pollution. Previously I posted about a new type of paint that can absorb pollution, it could be possible to create fleets of tiny of UAVs coated with this substance which fly around cities like birds, slowly helping to clean the air.

Fuel cell powered UAVs have several advantages over conventional UAVs, noted Tom Bradley, a doctoral student in Georgia Tech’s School of Mechanical Engineering who developed the fuel cell propulsion system. For starters, fuel cells emit no pollution and unlike conventional UAVs, don’t require separate generators to produce electricity for operating electronic components. “Another plus, because fuel cells operate at near ambient temperatures, UAVs emit less of a heat signature and would be stealthier than conventionally powered UAVs,” he said.

It might also be possible to integrate solar cells into the wing surfaces of these UAVs, allowing them to conserve fuel while flying in daylit areas. Carbon nanotubes and other nanotechnology-derived materials will likely be used to make the UAVs as light as possible, which will reduce their energy consumption and expand their range.

The main benefit of using hydrogen as a power source, is the lack of harmful emissions from the engines. I’m not in favor of hydrogen for ground vehicle use, but it may be a viable option for aircraft.

Green Car Congress, via Ecofriend

In a recent interview, Richard Branson expressed concern that his international business is contributing to climate change. Branson is tackling this issue by investing in conventional alternative energy technologies but has also announced that he is developing a new clean fuel to be used in cars, trains and eventually aircraft.

The new fuel, called Virgin Fuel of course, is currently under development and little information has been revealed about it so far except that it isn’t derived from ethanol. Over the next 4 years, Branson will invest $1 Billion in alternative energy research, divided among solar, wind, ethanol and the new Virgin Fuel project.

I used to be skeptical of global warming, but now I’m absolutely convinced that the world is spiraling out of control. CO2 is like a bushfire that gets bigger and bigger every year.

All of us who are in a position to do something about it must do something about it. Because Virgin is involved with planes and trains, we have even more responsibility. So we’ve put aside quite a lot of money to invest in alternative fuels. Over the next four years, we’ll invest something like $1 billion in alternative fuels. – Richard Branson, Business 2.0 interview

Branson’s next big bet , via BizTechie Chronicles

In a previous article, I wrote about the environmental costs of solar and wind power, in this article I’m going to look at a few of the issues surrounding another ‘green’ energy source: biofuels. Many people are aware of green fuels like biodiesel and ethanol, but just how ‘green’ are they?
Biofuel is any fuel that is derived from biomass – recently living organisms or their metabolic byproducts, such as sewage or manure. Like coal and petroleum, biomass is a form of stored solar energy. The energy of the sun is “captured” through the process of photosynthesis in growing plants. It’s a renewable energy resource, and under optimal conditions is very close to being carbon-neutral. When biomass decomposes aerobically, carbon dioxide is produced. Because this carbon dioxide was absorbed by the organism during it’s life cycle, it results in no net gain of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This is true for the combustion of biofuels as well, which is why they’re being looked at as a possible replacement for petroleum fuels.

There are 3 main examples of biofuel that are being looked at as energy sources: biodiesel, ethanol, and biomass.

Biodiesel

Biodiesel is a fuel that is equivalent to petroleum diesel, and can be burned in unmodified diesel engines. Biodiesel is produced with a chemical process called transesterification of oils from plants or animal fats. Biodiesel is fully biodegradable and completely non-toxic, in fact tests show it is less toxic than common table salt. Biodiesel can be blended with petroleum diesel, although so far biodiesel has proven to be more expensive than petroleum diesel. Biodiesel can also be distributed using existing infrastructure, which is a big advantage over fuel sources such as hydrogen. Soy-based biodiesel produces approximately 93 percent more energy than is expended in its creation, partly because soybeans require significantly less fertilizer and pesticides than other crops used for biodiesel. Biodiesel also produces 41 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than petroleum diesel, 20 percent fewer particulates, but also produces 10-25 percent more NOx than petroleum diesel.

If biodiesel is to be used in large quantities, feedstocks will need to be produced for the sole purpose of creating the fuel. The main crops that are currently used for biodiesel production are soy and canola (rapeseed), but these crops are both relatively inefficient; producing between 50-150 gallons per acre per year. The problem is there simply isn’t enough farmland available to produce all the biodiesel required. To put this in perspective, if every one of the 434 million acres of American farmland was used just for soy cultivation for biodiesel, it would only meet 12 percent of their current demand! For biodiesel to be a viable option as a replacement for petroleum diesel, a far more efficient means of production must be developed. Research conducted with certain types of algae that have up to 50 percent oil content has concluded that sufficient biodiesel could be produced in a combined area of 28,000 square kilometers, roughly 0.3 percent of the land mass of the USA. Because algae production doesn’t require soil, this process could be carried out in non-fertile areas such as desert areas, provided sufficient water was available. Other research is being conducted at MIT on technology developed by Massachusetts-based Green Fuel Technologies, which uses a bioreactor to grow algae fed with flue gas emissions from power plant smoke stacks. The process produces 40% less carbon dioxide and 86% less nitrous oxide than the original stack emissions, and the algae is harvested and processed into biodiesel. As an added benefit, the dried remainder can be reprocessed to create ethanol. There is a concern that this will encourage the continued use of coal, this technology is better suited to being a short term solution while fossil fuel systems are phased out. For more information on biodiesel, Canadian author Bill Kemp has written an excellent book called Biodiesel Basics and Beyond.

Ethanol

Ethanol is an alcohol fuel produced via fermentation and distillation of plant matter that contains carbohydrates (sugar). Ethanol is less toxic than methanol, but is still not suitable for human consumption or careless handling; a difference from biodiesel. Ethanol can be burned in a slightly modified gasoline engine, or used as a gasoline additive. The most common blends available are E10 and E85, which contain a 10 percent and 85 percent ethanol to gasoline mixture respectively. Some modifications may need to be made to vehicles if they are not ‘flex-fuel’ vehicles. From a consumer’s point of view, ethanol is distributed with the existing infrastructure, ie. from a gas station pump, but there’s another issue that’s preventing this from being an easy transition from gasoline. Ethanol in high concentrations is corrosive, and would weaken metal pipes and tanks. Due to this problem, an alternative method might be required to get the ethanol to the fuel stations. In an article by Ethanol News, one possible option was to use PVC pipes to transport the ethanol. This would be an environmental disaster due to the toxicity of PVC.

Because ethanol is produced from plant matter, it’s considered a renewable fuel source, and also has the potential to be carbon-neutral. However, corn-grain based ethanol isn’t as green as biodiesel due to the greater fertilizer and pesticide requirements for the corn crop. Corn-grain ethanol produces 25 percent more energy than is consumed in its creation, and produces only 12 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline.

As with biodiesel, there isn’t enough crop land available to produce enough ethanol from conventional sources. If all of the United State’s crops were put into ethanol production, it would meet only 10 percent of the current demands. Brazil makes extensive use of ethanol as a substitute for gasoline, using sugarcane as a feedstock. This is a much more efficient feedstock than corn, having an average cost of production (including farming, transportation and distribution) of $0.63 per US gallon. The downside to this practice is the cost of food has gone up, as more and more farmland is devoted to growing sugarcane. The fibrous residue of this process, bagasse, can be reprocessed into biodegradable bioplastic objects such as disposable plates and cutlery. Sugarcane isn’t a viable option for colder climates, so other options need to be looked at. Recent advancements in cellulosic ethanol show much promise in converting non-food crops such as grass and agricultural waste into fuel. This has the benefit of using more widely available feedstocks, and not consuming food crops for fuel. For ethanol to be a suitable replacement for gasoline, sufficient feedstock crops must be grown without negatively impacting our food production.

“Montana farms produce 10 million tons of wheat and barley straw that are typically left in the field. An additional five million tons of hay are produced annually,” said Dave Wichman, superintendent of the Central Ag Research Center. “The advantage of using annual farm crops for ethanol production is that farmers can produce biomass with conventional crops and equipment, and can alternate crop production for energy, food or feed,” he added. In areas with irrigation and enough heat, a double-cropping system with winter cereals and warm season grasses like winter triticale and sweet sorghum, can be adopted.” The biomass production increases by as much as 50 percent using this system compared to a single-cropping system,” – Link

The overall process must also have a sufficiently high energy surplus; currently corn-based ethanol does not, however cellulosic ethanol may change this. There are other issues surrounding this practice as well, such as the energy expended tending the crops and transporting the feedstock to a processing facility, which all reduce the efficiency of ethanol as an energy source.

Biomass

Biomass refers to any plant matter that can be used as fuel, although in this article I’m focusing on dry biomass that can be burned as an energy source. This is the oldest and best known form of biomass fuel; humans have been burning wood and other dry plant matter since prehistoric times. I’ve written previously on Giant Miscanthus as a biomass source, other grasses and plants can be burned as well including bamboo, kenaf and hemp. In areas where the plant is creating a problem, invasive species like kudzu could also be harvested and burned. An excellent way to utilize these resources is to pelletize the biomass and burn it in a coal power generating station, with stack scrubbers and particulate filters in place. This could work well with the algae stack systems from Green Fuel Technologies to help close the carbon loop. Biomass of this type can also be fed into a digester, to produce a methane mixture called ‘biogas’, which can be burned directly or in a turbine to generate electricity.

Other advances in biomass energy generation have also been made in the area of microbial fuel cells, a technology that uses microorganisms to digest sugars from agricultural and municipal waste that produces electrons directly. Fed with corn waste, a prototype system built by researchers at Penn State University in the USA produced an average of 1 watt per square meter of surface area, at 0.5 volts. In test runs, 93 percent of the biochemical oxygen demand was eliminated, indicating that almost all of the biomass was converted to electricity. The remaining biomass could be composted or otherwise disposed of. Depending on the unit costs, microbial fuel cells could be placed on farms to make use of the biomass produced on the fields, reducing the costs of transporting the biomass to a central processing facility. This would require only an electrical connection to the power grid, something that most farms already have. Other tests are being done with using microbial fuel cells to process municipal wastewater, and have shown success with both producing electricity and treating sewage.

Other comments

Another option that could be applied to any of these biofuels is using industrial ‘brownfields’ to grow biofuel crops. These areas are often contaminated with heavy metals and other harmful pollutants, depending on the situation plants could be used to clean up the site; a process known as phytoremediation. It could be possible to use plants to extract the pollutants, and then use the plants as biomass to generate energy. This would need to be done carefully, to avoid releasing the pollutants into the air. Lead in the soil is bad; lead in the air is worse. Another problem associated with biomass production in general is nutrient depletion. When a plant grows in soil, it extracts nutrients to use. Over time, this depletes those nutrients from the soil. If plants were continually being harvested and burned or processed into liquid fuel, the soil would soon become barren or would require fertilizers and minerals to be added again. This is possible, but may negate the energy benefits provided by producing the biofuel crops.

Efficiency and economics

It’s known that photosynthesis has an efficiency of around 16 percent. Even if the entire mass of the plant was converted to usable energy, this is already less efficient than using the sunlight directly via photovoltaic panels or concentrated solar power systems, and that’s not even factoring in energy losses during processing and distribution, or thermal and mechanical losses in a vehicle. Once those are accounted for, biofuels as vehicle fuel aren’t efficient or economical. To further compound this, ethanol contains roughly 34 percent less energy than the same amount of gasoline, resulting in a 34 percent drop in fuel economy which would also require refueling 34 percent more frequently. Currently biofuel gasoline blends provide a slight reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle exhaust, and can help a percentage of the population to reduce their oil consumption. It’s possible that algae biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol processes will become efficient enough to be viable, but until then the main focus for biofuels, a replacement for gasoline and diesel, isn’t nearly as ‘green’ (or as realistic) as many people believe.

Eco-tourism is becoming very popular, but people often wonder how eco-friendly the companies themselves are. Are they actually operating sustainably, or just ‘greenwashing’ to make a few bucks from tourists? I recently talked to one of the employees at an eco tourism company based in Toronto, called G.A.P Adventures, to find out.

G.A.P Adventures works with local communities, businesses and individuals to develop sustainable tourism opportunities that help local economies while minimizing negative environmental and cultural impacts, and also formed a non-profit organization called the Planeterra Foundation to further accomplish these goals. Planeterra supports community projects, local non-profit organizations and international charities in the regions where G.A.P tours are conducted. The types of projects supported include health, education, community development, environmental conservation, and employment skills training.

G.A.P’s eco-tours are focused on interacting with foreign cultures, rather than exploiting them. Trips introduce travelers to local culture by having smaller tour groups, using local transportation and staying in smaller independent lodging rather than a large foreign-owned hotel. Part of the company’s operating philosophy for eco-tours is to respect the communities in which they operate; socially, environmentally and economically.

How does G.A.P operate back home? The same philosophy which guides their international business operations also guides their home office policies. G.A.P has implemented the following environmental practices:

• $25 monthly subsidy of TTC Metropass
• 100% renewable energy with Bullfrog Power
• Recycled toilet paper and paper towels
• Environmentally-friendly cleaning products
• Biodegradable garbage bags used by cleaning staff
• 100% participation in Clean Air Commute, and awards 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006
• In-progress move to a paperless office
• Bike storage area for bicycle commuters

As concerns for the environment become more widespread, more people are looking to eco-tourism as a way to enjoy themselves on vacation, in a more socially-responsible way. G.A.P Adventures is a leader in the eco-tourism industry, operating every aspect of their business in a socially responsible and sustainable way.

http://www.gapadventures.com

Officially unveiled 4 days ago, the Tesla Roadster has gained significant attention from the media, as well as sports car enthusiasts and environmentalists everywhere. With it’s very sporty 4 second acceleration, sleek design and reasonably high top speed (135mph), it’s no surprise why the car enthusiasts like it. It’s also all electric and has no emissions, which is the biggest reasons environmentalists like it, but how green is the Tesla Roadster?

The Tesla Roadster uses 6,831 lithium-ion battery cells, a sophisticated computer system to maintaining charge balance, and a safety system that can disconnect power if a safety issue arises. The Li-Ion cells are fully recyclable, and the higher storage density of these batteries gives it about 3 times the range of the late General Motors EV1. The Tesla Roadster takes about 3 hours to charge from the home charging station, and an optional remote charging system is available for charging it away from home.
Many of the critics of electric vehicles state that EVs aren’t pollution-free, they simply shift the pollution to a coal power plant which generates the electricity for the consumer’s home. This is a valid comment, but may not be accurate depending on several other factors.

Although 55% of the United States power is derived from coal power plants, there are many other possible sources of electricity available from local utilities, such as wind and solar. Drivers of the Tesla Roadster may also have the option of powering their cars with their own solar panels; Tesla Motors chairman Elon Musk has said that the company is working to provide buyers with home PV panels, making the Tesla Roadster a net producer of energy as well as being completely emissions-free.

Even if the consumer’s power comes from a coal-fired plant, this doesn’t mean that there has to be excessive pollution. Certain controls can be implemented at the power plant to reduce emissions. In addition to the conventional stack scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators to sulfur and remove fly-ash, a novel new technology is being developed by a company called GreenFuel that which algae to remove carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide from stack emissions. The stack gases are bubbled through the algae tubes, as the algae soak up the carbon dioxide and oxides of nitrogen they sink to the bottom, to be harvested. The algae can be processed to produce biodiesel as well as ethanol, however this technology can also be used to achieve carbon sequestering; the algae can be used as a beneficial soil additive instead of being processed and burned.

Going even further, there’s no reason that coal plants need to actually burn coal. The hoppers, combustion chambers and boilers work just as well with other forms of biomass, such as Giant Miscanthus. Burning grass-based biomass in coal power plants would result in a carbon-neutral cycle, and if the GreenFuel algae stacks were included, the carbon dioxide could be re-used to make biodiesel and ethanol or put back into the soil to enrich it. Solar and wind are far more efficient than biomass though, the only reason that biomass would be a viable option is it’s easy to grow grass, and we already have many power generation facilities capable of using it. Forget “clean coal”, run the power plants on biomass until we have large scale solar available.

Continuing advances in battery technology will also improve on both the distance EVs can travel, as well as shorten the charging time. Other technologies like nanotechnology-enhanced capacitors could even replace batteries, holding a large amount of energy, but also charging in a matter of seconds or minutes rather than hours. I believe the best course of action in the short term is plug-in hybrid electric vehicles followed by pure electric vehicles. Plug in hybrids would be able to make use of the existing fueling infrastructure, but also use all-electric mode for short trips. In addition, PHEVs can run on algae generated ethanol, further reducing their environmental impact.
The Tesla’s price tag of $100,000 will make it unavailable to most people, however the demand for electric vehicles is there, and the constantly-improving technology is available now; unlike hydrogen fuel cells which seem to perpetually be “10 to 15 years off”. The Tesla Roadster has the potential to be very green, and will also stand as an inspiration for other electric vehicles in the future; including some with a slightly more managable price tag.