SunCorp

 Solar power, the holy grail of renewable energy, has always faced the problem of how to store the energy captured from the sun’s rays so that demand for electricity can be met at night or whenever the sun is not shining.
    The difficulty is that electricity is hard to store. Batteries are not up to efficiently storing energy on a large scale. A different approach being tried by the solar power industry could eliminate the problem.
    The idea is to capture the sun’s heat. Heat, unlike electric current, is something that industry knows how to store cost-effectively. For example, a coffee thermos and a laptop computer’s battery store about the same amount of energy, said John O’Donnell, executive vice-president of a company in the solar thermal business, Ausra. The thermos costs about $5 and the laptop battery $150, he said, and “that’s why solar thermal is going to be the dominant form.”
    Solar thermal systems are built to gather heat from the sun, boil water into steam, spin a turbine and make power, as existing solar thermal power plants do — but not immediately. The heat would be stored for hours or even days, like water behind a dam.
    A plant that could store its output could pick the time to sell the production based on expected price, as wheat farmers and cattle ranchers do. Ausra, of Palo Alto, California, is making components for plants to which thermal storage could be added, if the cost were justified by higher prices after sunset or for production that could be realistically promised even if the weather forecast was iffy. Ausra uses Fresnel lenses, which have a short focal length but focus light intensely, to heat miles of blackpainted pipe with a fluid inside.
    A competitor a step behind in signing contracts, but with major corporate backing, plans a slightly different technique in which adding storage seems almost trivial. It is a “power tower”, a little bit like a water tank on stilts surrounded by hundreds of mirrors that tilt on two axes, one to follow the sun across the sky in the course of the day and the other in the course of the year. In the tower and in a tank below are tens of thousands of gallons of molten salt that can be heated to very high temperatures and not reach high pressure.
    “You take the energy the sun is putting into the earth that day, store it and capture it, put it into the reservoir, and use it on demand,” said Terry Murphy, president and chief executive of Solar-Reserve, a company backed in part by United Technologies, the Hartford conglomerate.
    Power plants are typically designed with a heat production system matched to their electric generators. Murphy sees no reason why his should. His design is for a power tower that can supply 540 megawatts of heat. At the high temperatures it could achieve, that would produce 250 megawatts of electricity, enough to run a fair-size city. It might make more sense to produce a smaller quantity and run well into the evening or around the clock or for several days when it is cloudy.

The world needs a new development model

 Two big questions are blowing in the wind about the way the world is going. The first is, “Is it sustainable?” There is concern with the state of the environment, and realisation that the paradigm of economic growth that has made the rich countries wealthy is not sustainable. Mankind’s global footprint — which is a measure of the pressure human activity exerts on the resources of the earth — was 60 per cent of the earth’s capacity to renew itself in 1960. It has now reached 130 per cent of the earth’s capacity. We are no longer living off the earth’s revenue account. We are eating into its capital. Scientists project that if China and India grow in the way the West has, within 25 years they will require another whole planet earth to support them alone. But we have only one earth to share amongst all of us.
    The second question is, “Is it fair?” This is a question asked not just by people in the developing countries, but even in the US, the bastion of free markets and capitalism. In his book Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life, Robert Reich, a member of former President Bill Clinton’s cabinet, observes that the wealth of the two richest Americans — Bill Gates and Warren Buffet — is equal to the combined wealth of 100 million poorer Americans.
    He argues that this is a result of the capitalist process. He does not grudge the two their wealth. But he says a system that can result in such huge disparities cannot be completely right. In India, the wealth of the richest Indians now equals the wealth of the richest Americans. One may wonder how many hundreds of millions of poorer Indians’ wealth would equal one of these rich Indians’ wealth?

    Bill Emmott, former editor-in-chief of The Economist, in his book 20:21 Vision: 20th Century Lessons for the 21st Century says, “Capitalism in its present form is unpopular, unstable, unequal, and unclean”. These critics of capitalism are not communists. They are capitalists. Yet, they are calling for a better way. Therefore, let us not be stuck in ideologies. Let us face realities. Why is it ‘socialist’ and wrong to forgive the loans of struggling farmers in India, while it is ‘capitalist’ and right to help Bear Stearns’ rich investment bankers on Wall Street pay off their loans?
    When we consider how to transform capitalism to make it more inclusive and more sustainable, we must consider the role of business corporations in society. They are the engines of capitalism. Therefore, business
leaders must consider the footprints of their corporation’s activities on the human community and on the environment. We cannot remain stuck with the super capitalist notion that the business of business must be only business, and that corporate leaders are responsible only for creating shareholder value. We need a new framework for business management for the 21st century and here are five ideas to consider.
    The first is the distinction between consumers and citizens. Each of us is first a citizen and then a consumer. And even the very poor who cannot consume much are equal citizens. Corporations are good at relating to the consumers within us, but have not developed the skills to relate to us as citizens.
    The second is the distinction between having access to a product or service and owning it. The more business models are geared towards providing access rather than insisting that people must own the stuff, the less stuff we will put through our production and supply processes and the less the pressure we will exert on the earth’s resources.
    Third, we must realise that the primary need at the bottom of the pyramid is to earn and not to buy. Therefore, business models must see people as earners. Then, in addition to the dignity they will get, they may buy not just a shampoo sachet but the whole shampoo bottle!
    Fourth, Corporate Social Responsibility and philanthropy can never be an adequate response to the huge challenges of inclusion and sustainability that capitalism and business must address. The question is not how much of your profits you will give to social and environmental causes, but the processes by which you make those profits. The huge potential to do harm or do good lies in the mainline business operations of corporations.
    Fifth, remembering the old dictum that you can manage only what you can measure, means to measure the impact of business on society and the environment must be developed very quickly so that business managers can improve the way they benefit the lives of everyone.
    If GDP per capita is a principal measure of development of a society, then the glasses of the rich countries have already been filled. In comparison, China’s glass may be half full and India’s only one-third. We have yet to fill our glasses. The empty part of our glasses is both our need and an opportunity. And we must fill this empty part with a new model of development that is less toxic, more inclusive as well as sustainable. Indian business managers and business schools must take the lead in developing the new paradigm for business the world needs.

Macy's put solar panels on some store roofs, is working to cut energy use, recycling more and generally trying to "green up." But the department store still wants shoppers to use bags. Some bag, any bag.

"It is not necessarily a good thing for people to be walking out of a store with merchandise that's not in a bag," explained spokesman Jim Sluzewski. Sure, some people would rather forgo having their purchases put in a bag, but Mr. Sluzewski also believes customers wouldn't appreciate being stopped for a receipt check every time they leave a store.

So Macy's has come up with a compromise.

The chain will replace the 43 million or so laminated paper bags that it uses annually with a recyclable version made of 30 percent recycled materials. In addition, it will begin selling reusable cotton totes.

Retailers nationwide are moving to give environmentally active customers choices while fending off, as much as possible, government rules that would limit the industry's options. The shopping bag offers a particularly visible example of how different stores have moved quickly to tailor the growing green trends to fit.

A few years ago, the American bag seemed secure in its job, taking home goods and doing a little advertising work on the side. Debates were limited mainly to paper vs. plastic.

But environmentalists noted it takes hundreds of years for plastic to break down. People could see bags littering streets, and statistics showed only a small percentage making it to recycling. San Francisco passed rules to require use of compostable bags.

Rather than be forced to go that route, many retailers found other ways to answer the call for fewer bags on the planet.

Whole Foods Markets has been selling reusable bags for years but is now going a step further. The natural foods grocer is on track to stop using disposable plastic grocery bags in its 270 stores by today, a company spokeswoman said.

Swedish furniture chain Ikea will stop offering disposable plastic bags for purchase by October. The retailer started its phase-out last year by charging 5 cents for plastic bags and donating the proceeds to a forestry group. The company claimed it reduced U.S. plastic bag consumption from 70 million plastic bags to 35 million.

Shoppers at Wal-Mart, Target, Giant Eagle, Trader Joe's and many other groceries now see displays with reusable bags for sale. Discount grocer Aldi has long charged for disposable bags as part of its low-cost business model.

The deeper retailers get into the issues around the shopping bag, the more nuanced it can be. McGinnis Sisters specialty food stores introduced reusable bags made in China last summer. In March, the grocer with stores in Brentwood and Monroeville began offering more expensive versions made in the United States.

The concern was not just national pride but also the environmental costs of transporting bags. So far, consumers have purchased about 2,500 bags from China and 800 of the newer offerings. Jennifer R. Daurora, who handles business development for the stores, estimates at least 25 percent of customers bring a reusable bag.

Growing acceptance of such programs spurred state Rep. Lisa Bennington, a Democrat from Morningside, to introduce a bill that would phase out the use of nonbiodegradable plastic bags at large stores in Pennsylvania that carry groceries.

A week or so before the bill was scheduled for an early April committee hearing, lobbyists began contacting her. Letters came from groups such as the Progressive Bag Alliance, the American Chemistry Council, convenience store and food merchant groups, even massive retailer Wal-Mart.

Most of the lobbying letters expressed concern over the bill but indicated support for recycling, she said. "They want recycling. They're going to get recycling." Ms. Bennington now plans to offer an amendment that, instead of trying to stop use of noncompostable plastic bags, would mandate retailers offer at-store recycling programs.

Giant Eagle officials have said in the past that they evaluated using compostable bags but rejected them. Instead the company has been pushing recycling and reusable bags. Last year, the O'Hara grocer said it collected for recycling more than 1,200 tons of film plastic, much of which wasn't from bags, compared with 450 tons in 2006.

The company has sold several hundred thousand reusable bags since it began offering them in November 2006. This year, Giant Eagle put up posters promoting reusable bags. The signs were designed by students at Carnegie Mellon University.

Ms. Bennington's bill does not address bag use beyond large supermarkets and drugstores carrying grocery items. She noted the sheer volume of bags that consumers tend to pick up during a visit to the grocer typically exceeds that at most mall stores.

Putting recycling bins at the front entrance to a store such as Saks Fifth Avenue, Victoria's Secret or J.C. Penney might not fit the image that such retailers try to convey but, as the recent changes at Macy's show, the push to change shopping bags no longer stops at the mall doors.

Last weekend, the Mall at Robinson was one of 15 shopping centers owned by Cleveland-based Forest City Enterprises to give out reusable canvas tote bags to customers who brought plastic bottles to recycle.

After the promotion ended, the bags were to be sold at the guest services desk for $3 each. Any proceeds will go toward ordering more, said Shema Krinsky, director of marketing. "My hope is to offer them to our guests every day."

If there's enough activity on the part of retailers, they may be able to please the customers who focus on such things and cut bag use while avoiding too much governmental intervention on the issue.

Being flexible makes management's decisions easier. For example, Macy's will still use small plastic bags that seem to work best for items such as socks, jewelry and other small goods. Meanwhile, the retailer doesn't mind if customers bring reusable bags from other places.

There also is some leeway for individual stores on the department store chain's policy of getting merchandise into bags rather than letting customers just go bagless. "It's not necessarily a hard and fast policy," said Mr. Sluzewski.

In the end, he's not sure how many shoppers will decide to bring their own, rather than walk out with a new department store bag. "It does require you to remember to take them. But if it's important to customers, they'll do it."