A project aimed at reducing plastic pollution along the Mississippi River is deploying new technology in an ancient form: This is not your average message in a bottle.
Scientists are placing GPS devices inside plastic bottles to study how trash enters the watershed and travels downstream, with the ultimate goal being to reduce pollution in rivers and oceans. The initiative was launched last Saturday in Baton Rouge, the first of three cities participating in a pilot program that involves tracking several bottles on their journeys toward the Gulf of Mexico.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced $2,499,229 in awards to 24 U.S. small businesses to develop innovative technologies that help support EPA’s mission of protecting human health and the environment.
“We have the opportunity to confront our greatest environmental challenges with the strength and creativity of American entrepreneurs,” said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan. “I congratulate all of the small businesses receiving EPA funding today. I look forward to working with them to harness the power of innovation to build a healthier, safer and more equitable future.”
EPA is one of 11 federal agencies that participate in the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program established by the Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982. The small businesses in today’s announcement are receiving Phase I awards of up to $100,000 for six months for “proof of concept” of their proposed technology. Companies that successfully complete Phase I can then submit a proposal for a Phase II award of up to $400,000 to further develop and commercialize the technology.
The following science and technology-based small businesses received EPA SBIR Phase I awards:
Adelphi Technology, LLC. (Bowling Green, Ky.) – A compact, portable battery-powered analytical instrument for monitoring ultra-low concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Firefly Photonics LLC (Coralville, Iowa) – A portable mid-infrared gas spectrometer to monitor VOC emissions from concentrated animal feeding operations.
Nikira Labs Inc. (Mountain View, Calif.) – A high-selective ethylene oxide analyzer developed using open-path, mid-infrared cavity enhanced spectrometry.
Clean & Safe Water
Faraday Technology, Inc. (Englewood, Ohio) – Electrochemical removal of contaminants of emerging concern using a modular water reuse system.
FHNC Ltd. Co. (Fort Worth, Texas) – A point of source sewage treatment device to remove fats, oils, and greases from waste streams.
Hyperion Analytical LLC (Rancho Cucamonga, Calif.) – An analytical system for water treatment systems to provide near-real-time measurement of N-nitrosamines which are a potential human health concern.
Intelligent Optical Systems, Inc. (Torrance, Calif.) – An integrated sensor system to monitor contaminants in water.
NanoSonic, Inc. (Pembroke, Va.) – Durable hydrophobic membranes with antifouling properties for water purification systems.
Photon Systems Inc. (Covina, Calif.) – An in-situ, reagentless sensor for continuous microbial monitoring in water reuse treatment systems.
Pure Blue Tech Inc. (Seattle, Wash.) – A membrane integrated with polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) transducers to reduce fouling and promote efficient water reuse.
Triangle Environmental Health Initiative (Durham, N.C.) – A Zero-Waste wastewater treatment system to eliminate brine and produce three output streams for water and energy recovery.
Sonata Scientific LLC (Bethel, Conn.) – A long-lasting, self-disinfecting antiviral surface cover for high-touch surfaces to reduce viral transmission.
Quick-Med Technologies Inc. (Gainesville, Fla.) – A long-term antimicrobial, antiviral disinfectant coating using hydrogen peroxide as the active agent for use on frequently touched surfaces.
Aquagga Inc. (Juneau, Alaska) – A field-deployable hydrothermal alkaline treatment reactor for on-site disposal of PFAS-contaminated wet wastes and brines.
Cyclopure, Inc. (Skokie, Ill.) – A novel PFAS treatment approach to remove and destroy PFAS from contaminated water.
Purafide, LLC (Ann Arbor, Mich.) – A novel Plasma Water Reactor for PFAS remediation in potable reuse systems.
Sustainable Materials Management
Dunn Infinite Designs (Denver, Colo.) – A mobile, rapid freeze-drying system to prevent food waste.
Earth Merchant (Vancouver, Wash.) – Durable, lightweight construction bricks made from industrial hemp for architectural applications with improved thermal performance to improve energy efficiency.
Farm to Flame Energy Inc. (Syracuse, N.Y.) – A novel combustion process that enables biomass from construction, food processing and agricultural waste streams to be transformed into affordable, low-emission electricity.
OLIN (Philadelphia, Pa.) – Engineered approach that repurposes city-wide waste-stream glass into a soil product suitable for urban green spaces and landscaping.
PKS Consulting, Inc. (Anchorage, Alaska) – A mobile Plastic Ocean Waste Recycler that produces recycled plastic lumber products from locally collected plastic ocean waste.
Simonpietri Enterprises LLC (Kailua, Hawaii) – An integrated system to safely gasify construction and demolition wood into low-greenhouse gas transportation fuel.
Transfoam LLC (Charlottesville, Va.) – An innovative synthetic biology approach to recycle waste plastic into biodegradable plastic.
Verdant Structural Engineers (Berkeley, Calif.) – Carbon-storing straw structural insulated panels for residential applications in the U.S. which are less toxic and improve lifecycle impacts of building materials.
NanoSonic, Inc. (Pembroke, Va.) – Clean manufacturing process to produce environmentally friendly particles for textile pigments and dyes.
Over his career Thomas Edison garnered more U.S. patents than anyone in his time. Edison profited from his patents, but he was also exposed to the dark side of the patent system. He had to contend with lawsuits by other patentees who sought – and sometimes won – a piece of his success. While the patent system is designed to spur innovation like Edison’s, it also hampers it.
Easy copying and imitation discourage innovation, because why make the effort if someone else will profit from it? The patent system works by enabling inventors to block unauthorized use of patented technology.
Most technologies are developed by many inventors over many years, a process called “cumulative” innovation. Too often, however, early inventors get a patent on a small and perhaps insignificant piece of the technological puzzle, yet their patent covers the entire puzzle. Inventors who solve subsequent parts of the puzzle may need to pay royalties to the patentee, even if their contributions are larger.
The U.S. is awash in patents. Over 350,000 U.S. patents were granted in 2019, four times the per capita rate in 1980. From the perspective of research managers at big firms, patents are cheap and easy to get. For example, in the early 2000s Bill Gates decided that Microsoft was patent-poor, and within a few years the company increased annual patent applications by 50%.
Patents are easy to get because the standards of patentability are low and because the burden is on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to prove an invention is not patentable. Patent examination is slow. It often takes three years or more. Despite increased staffing, the backlog of patent applications has continued to grow, and examiners spend on average only 20 hours reviewing each application. The patent examiner is required to read and understand the invention in an application, determine whether the invention meets the claims of the application, search existing technology to see if the invention already exists and write a response to the application.
Innovative firms that succeed in assembling many pieces of a technology puzzle into a finished product must consult with a patent lawyer to learn whether their new technology is covered by one or more patents owned by others. Ideally an innovator will get permission to use patented technology, usually for a fee, or redesign its technology to steer clear of relevant patents.
In practice this patent “clearance” process is difficult, costly and sometimes impossible. For technologies like smartphones, a patent attorney likely would need to review hundreds of patents, including many patents that are not granted until long after the new product is launched. Failure to license relevant patents creates a risk of litigation and the threat the new technology could be forced out of the marketplace.
As a result, smartphone patent litigation is far too common. Apple – a smartphone pioneer – has participated in scores of lawsuits around the globe as both a defendant and plaintiff. As a plaintiff, Apple sometimes uses its patents opportunistically to hinder innovation by its rivals.
For example, Apple sued Samsung using a patent that claimed the slide-to-unlock feature on a phone as Apple’s invention. Despite strong evidence that inventors before Apple had already accomplished the key steps to implement this feature, Apple convinced the courts that their version of this feature was patentable, and after seven years Samsung agreed to pay license fees to Apple to settle the case.
Economic research suggests that these litigation costs and license fees burden innovative firms to such a degree that on balance the patent system discourages innovation. In other words, innovative firms gain a benefit from their patents on their new technology, but that benefit is more than offset by the many patents owned by others that might be asserted against the new technology.
Too little information
When an inventor gets a patent, she is supposed to reveal the secret sauce behind the invention in the patent, a public document. This allows scientists and engineers to learn about the invention and use that information to improve the technology.
Or at least, that’s the theory. In practice, many inventors make shoddy disclosures. Experiments reported in patents are sometimes fictional and often rely on dubious methodology. For instance, patent law permits an inventor to disclose the fictional finding that a drug treats cancer as evidence that she deserves a patent on that drug.
Inventors applying for patents are allowed to include predicted experimental results. The intent is to allow for earlier disclosure and to help smaller companies secure funding. But when evidence in patents is wrong, other innovators can be misled. Further, if other innovators want to figure out if the patented drug really treats cancer – or any other disease – they need a license from the patentee.
Sometimes key pieces of evidence are missing entirely from patents. This happens when a patent covers aspects of a technology that the patentee didn’t actually invent. Imagine discovering that paper is a mediocre incandescent conductor in light bulbs and using that discovery to get a patent covering thousands of other conductors, including ones that, unbeknownst to you, work much better. Later innovators might want to figure out whether other substances are better conductors than paper, but they can’t even start experiments without a license.
There is also too little information about the boundaries of patents. When an inventor gets a patent, she is also supposed to provide clear boundary information – what a patent application covers and what it doesn’t – to the public about her patent rights. The patent system fails to ensure this, however.
The boundary information in patent applications is hidden for 18 months until the application is published, and even longer if the boundaries change later during examination. Once the patent is granted, lawyers, judges and the public often have difficulty reaching agreement on the meaning of boundary language that may be intentionally vague or ambiguous.
How to fix the system
Inventors who come up with new chemicals, including pharmaceuticals, tend to benefit from the patent system. Unfortunately, the system appears to impose a net cost on most other technologies, especially in high-tech industries. Opportunistic patent owners, often called patent trolls, surprise inventors with patent claims about inventions that are minor or distantly related to the technology that is the target of the suit. Economics research shows such trolling activity slows innovation.
The patent system can be improved to deliver a net gain to all inventors even without being drastically reworked. A good start would be to rigorously enforce existing standards about information disclosure. Courts should push inventors to clearly describe and explain their inventions.
The flood of patents on minor technical advances could be ended if patent fees were increased and if the nonobviousness standard, which screens out minor advances, was made stronger. Reducing the number of patents and increasing the amount of information about each patent would go a long way toward making the patent system work the way it was intended.
Today’s economy is pushing manufacturers to constantly be searching for new ways to drive down cost, shorten lead times, and adapt to customer preferences at an increasingly rapid pace. To remain competitive in today’s challenging marketplace, manufacturers must have in place a culture of continuous innovation.
PennTAP is joined in this webinar by guest speaker Dr. Shawn Clark, Clinical Professor of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, from the Penn State Smeal College of Business. Dr. Clark examines how businesses can create a culture of constant innovation which will allow them to quickly adapt to changing marketplace pressures.
The U.S. Department of Energy today announced $18 million in funding for four cutting-edge projects that will help passenger vehicles operate more efficiently, reduce energy consumption, and contribute to the Biden Administration’s goal of reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. This funding is part of Phase II of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy’s (ARPA-E) Next-Generation Energy Technologies for Connected and Automated On-Road Vehicles (NEXTCAR) program.
“The same nifty features that are making cars easier to drive can also make them way more efficient, use less gas, and save drivers money at the pump,” said Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm. “These technologies are a win-win for drivers, and they’re also going to lead to more jobs, a cleaner transportation sector, and rapid progress towards our carbon-free future.”
Launched in 2016, ARPA-E’s NEXTCAR program focuses on reducing vehicle energy consumption by developing Connected and Automated Vehicle (CAV) technologies that optimize vehicle dynamic controls and powertrain operation, allowing a vehicle to automatically process and react to its surrounding environment, traffic conditions and nearby vehicles. Current CAV technologies predominantly focus on the improvement of vehicle safety and adding driving convenience, while NEXTCAR is among the first of research efforts in this space to specifically focus on developing CAV technologies to reduce vehicle energy use.
Phase I of NEXTCAR focused on the development of CAV technologies for use in all vehicle classes, including cars, trucks, and buses, with the goal of enabling a 20% reduction in energy consumption. The teams moving on to Phase II of NEXTCAR are building on these goals with a specific focus on light-duty passenger vehicles, a 30% reduction in energy consumption, and taking vehicles to Level 4 of automation, where a vehicle is able to perform all driving operations on its own with optional human override.
“Michigan workers, manufacturers and universities are the best in the world and continue to lead the development of next generation vehicles. Michigan Tech is one of those institutions leading the way in creating longer range electric and autonomous vehicles, improving safety and making our cars more energy efficient. This investment will ensure Michigan remains a global leader,” said Senator Debbie Stabenow.
The four teams selected to receive $18 million in funding through Phase II of NEXTCAR are:
The University of California Berkeley (Berkeley, CA): UC Berkeley will adapt and expand their eco-route, eco-drive, and eco-charge controls to leverage connectivity and Level 4 automation to generate additional efficiency benefits in electrified vehicles. Award amount is $3,474,864.
Michigan Technical University (Houghton, MI): MTU will expand its set of test vehicles, leveraging connectivity and Level 4 automation technologies to identify additional opportunities for efficiency and range optimization. Award amount is $4,498,650.
Ohio State University (Columbus, OH): OSU will integrate advanced system-level optimization and control technologies for a PHEV with Level 4 automation; working to improve energy efficiency by more than 30%. Award amount is $4,933,933.
Southwest Research Institute (San Antonio, TX): SwRI will adapt and expand its predictive eco-routing, eco-driving, and hybrid power control strategies using vehicles with L4 automation. Award amount is $5,250,000.
Light-duty vehicles, like those targeted through NEXTCAR Phase II, are responsible for almost 60% of overall energy consumption in all vehicles across the transportation sector. CAV technologies can increase vehicle efficiency, which in turn can drastically reduce emissions across the transportation sector, leading to a more efficient domestic vehicle fleet and further reducing U.S. dependence on fossil fuels.
“NEXTCAR Phase I teams successfully demonstrated that technological advancements in connectivity for automated vehicles can greatly improve the efficiency of our transportation sector.” said ARPA-E Acting Director and Deputy Director for Technology Jennifer Gerbi. “We are eager to see how these Phase II teams can continue this crucial work in designing the efficient vehicle fleet of the future.”
Ten teams were originally selected under NEXTCAR Phase I to receive $32 million in funding. In addition to the $18 million being provided to the four teams from Phase II at this time, additional funding will be provided at a later date for program-wide demonstration and testing activities.
The coming decade will be one of transitions – for good or ill. How we respond to COVID-19 – particularly how governments spend their trillions – will shape our destiny going forward. The 2020s could see us transition into a world of ever more destabilising shocks, or towards a reconfiguration of the systems we rely on based on goals of equity, sustainability and resilience.
In this report, we explore some of the key dynamics that lie at the heart of these transitions. And we ask how we can make active choices now that will transform our future prospects by embedding, at the heart of our strategies and plans, the realisation that a fundamentally different model is needed. A model that puts people’s wellbeing and planetary health first, as the overriding imperatives.
ISTC is part of a national team to develop artificial intelligence technologies to sort non-recyclable plastics so they can be reused for fuels. The U.S. Department of Energy has awarded the team $2.5 million to complete the three-year project.
Plastics recycling in the U.S. typically requires manual sorting as workers pick out the useful kinds of plastic from conveyor belts and discard the non-recyclable types. This process is labor-intensive and expensive. In this new project, scientists are using high-tech sensors developed by UHV Technologies, Inc. and commercialized through its spin-off Sortera Alloys that will detect specific chemical-based “fingerprints” of each kind of plastic polymer, classifying them through a new system and sorting them into different bins.
“Sensor fusion and artificial intelligence algorithms used in the process will increase the speed and accuracy of plastic sorting, eventually making the technology more economical with a cost goal of less than $30 per ton,” said BK Sharma, co-principal investigator of the project.
Sensor fusion will generate a unique fingerprint for plastic pieces, while deep learning and artificial intelligence algorithms will create a novel classification system for the plastics.
Another challenge for the project is to reduce plastic contamination, a major reason why plastics end up in landfills. One of the project goals is to develop low-cost methods that decrease contamination to less than 5 percent. Improving the purity of plastic waste increases its potential and value for reuse.
A successful process that produces clean plastics, separated by type, could offer marketable products while diverting non-recyclable materials (plastics #3–#7) from landfills. Sharma’s primary role will be to use the catalytic pyrolysis process to determine if the plastics can be used to produce valuable products, primarily diesel or aviation fuels along with gasoline, naphtha, and waxes.
Besides ISTC, the team includes:
UHV Technologies, which has created sorting technologies for other products;
The Idaho National Laboratory, to complete chemical composition analysis and screening techniques; and
The Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County, which will help to integrate the proposed technology into the existing recycling industry.
“At the end of the project, if we can come up with a process that can convert mixed plastic into a low-cost feedstock to produce different types of fuels and other products, that will be a big success,” Sharma said.