Be A Carbon Hero

by Nancy Atkinson on February 25, 2008

Runner. Image credit: Nate Atkinson
NASA is quite proud of its spinoffs technology developed for the space agency’s needs in space that in turn contribute to commercial innovations that improve life here on Earth. And rightly so. Just as a quick example, improvements in spacesuits have led to better protection for firefighters, scuba divers and people working in cold weather. But the list of NASA spinoffs is quite extensive.

Just like NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA) has a Technology Transfer office to help inventors and businesses use space technology for non-space applications. The latest invention touted as an ESA spinoff is a small hand-held device called a Carbon Hero that might help make people more aware of the carbon footprint they are leaving behind due to vehicle emissions.

Used in conjunction with a cell phone, the Carbon Hero receives data from navigation satellites to determine the mode of transportation being used. The device’s algorithm is able to use the speed and position of the user to determine how they are traveling, and how much CO2 they are generating. The user doesn’t have to enter any information, the data is computed automatically.

The user would get feedback on the environmental impact of different types of transportation – whether by train, plane, bike or by foot. The Carbon Hero lets the user compare one kind of travel with another and calculate the environmental benefits daily, weekly and monthly.

“If you go on a diet you want to see if all that effort has made a difference so you weigh yourself. The beauty of our system is that it’s easy; you have a “weighing scale” on you all the time giving you your carbon footprint. When you make the effort to walk instead of taking the car you can immediately see the result, so it feels more worthwhile doing it and you are more likely to stick with it,” says Andreas Zachariah, a graduate student from the Royal College of Art in London and inventor of Carbon Hero.

The device has been tested using the GPS system, but will be fully operational after Galileo, the European global navigation system is fully up and running.

Learn more about ESA’s Technology Transfer Programme Office.

Learn more about NASA Spinoffs.

Original News Source: ESA Press Release


← Older Comments
  • JohnH

    Philosophical Question: Can the author of a newsletter be a troll in his own board? He certainly has us all stirred up reading and commenting!

    :D

  • JohnH

    One Question for the Global Warming Advocates:

    If increased carbon dioxide causes an increase in the Earths temperature, why does the data show that the carbon dioxide increases lag the temperature increases by as much as 800 years?

    Has causality been repealed?

  • Bob

    The people who repair air conditioners and refridgerators and freezers and heat pumpswill tell us that when you change the chlorine content of any system you change the capability of that system to transfer heat. Many refridgerants boil at anywhere from -21F to -43F and even lower! Humans do have th capability to change the chlorine content in the ocean by affecting the salinity content. The transfer of heat from the equator to the polar regions is done by the ocean currents and changing the salinity content does change the weather or are some of you telling me that freezers and heat pumps and air conditioners don’t work?

  • TheAnt

    First off its space derived tech, so it belong here. Second Earth montitoring sciences – that includes global warming trends wouldnt it? Would qualify as well. So this text qualify for the site in several ways.

    So at the end a personal note.
    Living in the sub actic we’ve have had the warmest winter and warmest decade since temperature measurements started – no doubt we’re heading for catastropic changes in this area. Winter is officially over already by the end of february!

    But im sure that fact wont rock the boat for those who are in a state of denial even when the facts yell them straight in the face.

  • Astrofiend

    DM –

    Hmmm… Where in my post did I say that I strongly supported a GW position?

    I stated only that it seems like you have a strong anti-GW position, and feel the need to rant about it. And then in reply, you rant about it again!

    But let’s respond to some of your claims for fun:

    1) Coastal sea level rise isn’t even predicted to be happening yet, you douche! So the fact that it isn’t happening to a large degree at the moment proves nothing either way.

    2) I agree to a certain extent with this claim, but would say there is evidence that is strongly indicative of human-based causes of a sharp increase in av. global temps.

    3) This is the point that makes it painfully clear that you are have no idea what you’re talking about. Comparing weather prediction to climate modeling? Seriously, learn the difference between weather and climate.

    4) Of course there are some scientists who doubt the models. They may yet prove to be correct – that’s why science works so well. But the overwhelming consensus and the best data analysis and modeling currently available suggest that they are wrong.

    5) I agree.

    6) I agree. Follow the money. But who’s making the big bucks? Not the scientist that are working on these models, that’s for damn sure. Maybe special interests in Washington, who instead of committing to something meaningful, dream up new ways to make dollars out of the situation, like carbon trading etc.

    7) I never said that it’s not hypocritical to make GW claims and own and do the things you’ve listed. Nor do I advocate ceasing all progress and innovation because of GW. It’s not practical or sensible. That doesn’t mean that the problem doesn’t exist though, or that we can try to limit further damage through innovations in various technologies.

    I mean seriously, do you understand the proposed mechanisms for GW? Have you read and analysed the scientific papers? Do you understand the various aspects and causes of climate change that they model? I strongly suspect that the sum total of the information you base your opinions on comes from the O’Rielly Factor, or some equally informative Fox network trash.

    And why wouldn’t we want to reduce our emissions? The way we live at the moment – pumping tons of chemicals into the air and environment at large – is akin to pissing in the bathtub before jumping in.

  • Rubald

    Those with the most to gain from debating the reality of global warming are those arguing for the status quo. “Don’t make me change anything while I plunder more resources than the rest of the planet. It’s my right because an accident of birth put me here.

    This article was about space based technology. The authors didn’t promote any one idea other than the reality of a product – regardless of its value or usefulness.

  • JohnH

    http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
    It’s “global warming” not, “warming at theAnts house”. as the above article states, various levels of snow at any given location are anecdotal evidence, at best.

    Threats of coming ice age scared me as a third grader in the 70′s. Do these sound familiar?

    “There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically…”

    “The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. ”

    “But they are almost unanimous in the view…”

    “Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects.”

    “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”

    Any of it sound familiar? It should, I’ve heard most of it in the hype surrounding global warming. Sad fact is, these quotes all came from Newsweeks 1975 article on global cooling by Peter Gwynne. We were given ten years before food production dropped and life on earth began to starve if immediate action wasn’t taken.

    Regarding chlorine – I can change the thermodynamic properties of any system by changing any of the components. All easy on the scale of a heat pump. Try it on a planetary scale. I’m familiar with the conveyor – it’s driven by salinity differences and it keeps northern Europe from freezing. Once it wasn’t there. Did mans activity create it? In the future it may be gone. You’re saying that man will be solely responsible for it’s destruction?

    PUt a glass of water on the stove and turn the burner on the lowest setting. Add some chlorine. add some salt, take away the chlorine and salt, do whatever you want but, I’m betting the it’s the burner that affects the temperature of that was more than anything else you could do short of a violent chemical reaction. Doesn’t it just make sense that the Sun is the biggest effector of climate change on the Earth??

  • alphonso richardson

    Whoa!! All this over an article? I agree that UT caters for a wide & diverse audience, with various levels of interest & understanding.
    NASA, like a number of institutions, also have diversified their work & some of there developments end up the consumer’s world (eg. SatNav; Military GPS satellites).

    Regarding global warming, as I understand it, in that great tradition of science, scientists generally agree that SOMTHING’S going on, but the devil’s in the details (ie, what the hell’s causing it & the effect IF ANY humankind is contributing to thw situation) – cue mis-information, pseudo science & general bull-headedness

    Common sense dictates it’s not really clever to keep polluting the environment, but like with any question of this type, surely scientists working to find an answer (like life on Mars) is part of what makes things great?

  • Geokstr

    I have been following this site for several years, and have been dismayed by the one-sidedness of articles published here concerning “Global Warming”.

    This is supposed to a scientific site, not a religious or political one, so why are there no stories that contradict the alarmists? Despite what proponents claim, there are tons of articles and peer-reviewed papers by prominent scientists in fields directly related to the climate that disagree with part or all of the supposed (but non-existent) “concensus”. Global warming, and especially the hypothesis of human activity causing it, are in no way proven, and there is much evidence against it as well.

    It would be refreshing to at least see some balance here, so we can make up our own minds about a subject that has so many draconian political and economic ramifications.

  • Bob

    Actually, the content of chlorine on a global scale can be changed and probably has changed by nature on its own in the past, killing off many species. During glacial periods the Great Lakes did dump excess fresh water into the oceans through the St. Lawrence Seaway by changing the direction of its current.

    If you release stronger forms of chorine into the air, which was done by ref mechanics repeatedly for years, you can burn a hole in the ozone and freon is lethal enough to effect the atmospheric cycle, which in turn contaminates the water cycle.

    Never mind all of that. Most posts here against GW are not even aware of the strongest argument against it. It goes as follows:

    The earth wobbles in its orbit. Polaris is the North Star right now but thousands of years ago it was Vega. During that time the northern hemisphere would be pointed more directly at the sun at the winter solstice and would be closer during those summer months (Dec thru March) than it presently is in our summer months ( June July and August.). There is extreme evidence from the subsoils that the Ohio River Valley was a rainforest and that its summers were much hotter than the present rainforests on earth since most of the planet’s land mass is in the northern hemisphere. Average temperatures likely were in the upper 90s back then.

    As it wobbled to the other extreme the planet wound up with ice ages. Further, studies of the sun’s activities suggest that the number of solar flares and sun spots were large in the cases of the effects of el ninos and ninas where the number of X-rays penetrating the ocean were much larger than normal.

    Further, the sun has an 11 year solar cycle, matching the length of a Jovian year. Every 11 years Jupiter is in opposition during January, teaming up with the sun to tug us a little closer during January, coinciding with the warmer Januaries we have had recently, only to find February and March acting more winter-like (which we are all experiencing right now). Just look in the morning sky and you will see that Jupe finished being in opposition a while ago.

    So there seem to be a number of astronomical influences over our climates. I still didn”t mention that recently it was found that when we pass through density waves in our galactic path, we wind up with ice ages and they match data with our journeys through those extra star dust times.

    However, science is a process in which we first experiment with a prototype in a controlled risk environment, an environment where we can afford the failure of our hypothesis being tested. If we cannot afford failure, then we must take a step back wait until our technological advancement allows us to.

    Every scientist must distinguish his or herself from pseudoscience. Science is not seeking out truths that cannot be disproven. Pseudoscience does that. Science seeks falsification and realizes beliefs that are less false. Seeking out truth is to seek out dead ends that cannot be questioned. Therefore, what happens if those against GW are wrong and GW is ignored? Can we afford those consequences? What happens if GW advocates are wrong and the amount of CO2 is reduced? What is that fallout? The latter looks more affordable if they are wrong. The former will only listen when a runaway effect is realized…which is too late.

  • The Scott

    Y’all are a bunch of knuckleheads.

  • JohnH

    Excellent post Bob.

← Older Comments

Previous post:

Next post: