What ROI at what RISK? – every investor’s top question! With respect to open innovation, the same question gets rephrased as below …

a) What is the cost of doing ‘open innovation’ vis-à-vis strictly ‘in-house innovation’?
b) Opening up for innovation is new for me, and new things carry more risk, can I predict my return-on-investment?
c) How can I have a control over people not on my payroll? Will I loose money?
d) We already have an internal R&D, will opening up be an additional cost?

So how are the various aspects of collaborative innovation fair when it comes to the all important, COST?

COST FACTOR 1: By far the most favorable advantage open innovation carries is ‘Pay for real outcome not for trial and error.’

This is a huge cost saving, and a simple logic. Assuming there is a 20% chance of an average innovation effort to succeed, in open innovation you pay only for the favorable outcome and not for the effort which does not yield desired results.

A must ask question is “Then who pays for the effort which does not yield desired results”? The rule of averages comes into play, the so called huge cost of yielding no result is distributed among many people, making it most of the times insignificant for an individual. Broad talent pool increases the chances of finding the right fit for you and at the same time increases individual’s chances of finding an opportunity where her talent can fit. As you see it’s a solid win-win situation.

COST FACTOR 2: Benefit from what is yours, in-house.

Opening up to outside of your group but within your organization can also be treated as a type of open innovation.
Leveraging what you have – by connecting the exiting talent of your organization (part time, full time or even coffee time) with the existing challenge of your organization.
Utilizing what you anyway paid for is a cost saving. Garage sales never hurt.

COST FACTOR 3: Avoid risk of not completing the first, fifth or the last mile of your idea just because you do not have a person who can travel that mile for you.

Some great innovative ideas don’t see the light of the day during the execution resulting in financial losses. Fill in the gaps by bringing just-in-time talent. Just as there is a cost of innovating, there is a cost of not innovating, more so when you abandon a worthy idea.

Cost of doing collaborative innovation, internal and/or external, is not more compared to strictly in-house innovation. Though relatively new phenomenon, open innovation provides more control and is less risky. While you won’t have control over the people, you will have a control over paying only for what you get. Open innovation does not need to be a either /or with in-house innovation, nor does it need to make an addition or reduction in your innovation budget – considering open innovation as ‘just another means’ is by far the best way to avoid any cost related roadblocks.
Posted by Jayesh Badani

Last Autumn, the Evergreen Brick Works heritage site received an Acknowledgment Award in the Holcim North American Awards 2008 competition, and since then, the impact has been substantial.

The award “has been very helpful in our fundraising efforts,” says David Stonehouse, an urban planner with the Evergreen Foundation, the not-for-profit organization spearheading the revitalization of the former Don Valley Brick Works.

To date, the charity has received $20 million from Infrastructure Canada, $10 Million from the Ontario Ministry of Culture and $3 million from the David and Robin Young Family. The funding is in instalments, but Evergreen still has to raise the balance, including about $35 million in construction costs, says Stonehouse.

Located in Toronto’s Don Valley, the site contains 16 designated heritage buildings, some of which date back to the 1890s. The brick works closed in the 1990s. At one time, the property was zoned for a housing development but was appropriated by the Toronto Region Conservation Authority because it was partially on the flood plain.

Earlier this year the Evergreen Foundation signed a lease agreement with the city, which manages the site, after several years of negotiations.

With a targeted goal of achieving LEED Platinum status, its mission is to transform the 4.9-hectare site into “a venue for exploring fundamental challenges facing sustainable cities of today such as environmental and community health, brownfield development, heritage conservation and the need for innovative public-private partnerships.”

To accomplish that goal, minimal alterations and restorations will be made to the buildings which are being designed by du Toit Architects, the project’s prime architect.

Rather than completely rebuild the structures, Evergreen’s approach is an adaptive reuse “which emphasizes a light touch and loose fit, with the aim of ensuring the adaptability of the site to changing ideas of program and occupancy.”

However, there will be one new building. Construction of the 45,000-Centre for Urban Sustainability has been underway since February.

Designed by Diamond + Schmitt Architects, it will include features such as the Evergreen administrative offices, event space and childrens’ programming facilities.

In early May, site servicing and foundation restoration work for four of the 16 existing buildings got underway. Micro piles are being installed to connect the on-grade slabs with bedrock to stabilize the buildings. Eastern Construction is the overall construction manager.

All the work should be completed and the Evergreen Bricks Works will be in full operation by 2010, says Stonehouse.

By: Dan O’Reilly

Our cars, trucks, planes, trains and economy will screech to a HALT without a sufficient supply of transportation fuels. And it will only get worse. Energy experts predict a 25% increase in U.S. petroleum consumption and a 35% increase in worldwide petroleum demand by 2025.

Where does all that fuel come from?
We know from experience that unexpected events around the world, such as hurricanes in the Gulf Coast to turmoil in the Middle East;,disrupt oil supplies and hike up the prices of crude oil and commercial fuels. A reliable domestic fuel source is more important than ever before.
And the answer to that need has the potential for vast profits!

Biofuels are poised to meet the worlds increased energy demands

Biofuels are prepared to make ample fuel supplies at a time when output from existing oil fields are currently declining and new fields are not yet ready for production. Biofuels can help fill the gap between limited fuel supplies and increasing worldwide demand–a gap that is growing in the coming years.

Biofuels are renewable fuels that are predominantly produced from domestically produced biomass feed stocks or as a by product from the industrial processing of agricultural or food products. Biofuels can also come from the recovery and reprocessing of biomass products such as cooking and vegetable oil.

Biofuels can also be used in conventional healing equipment or diesel engine with no major modification. Biofuel is simple to use, biodegradable, non-toxic and essentially free of sulfur and aromatics. Ethanol and biodiesel are the most widely recognized biofuel sources for transport sector.

Biofuel contains no petroleum, but biofuels can be blended at any level with petroleum fuel to create a biofuel blend.

Biomass is a renewable energy resource derived from waste. Biomass comes from both human and natural activities and uses by-products from the timber industry, agricultural crops, raw material from forests, household wastes, and wood. Like wind, solar and other forms of renewable energy, biomass produces fewer emissions than its fossil fuel counterparts.

Biomass can be converted into various types of biofuels and used in numerous applications. Two types of ethanol are produced in the United States: fermentation ethanol and synthetic ethanol. In addition, biodiesel, bio-oil, and biofuel from synthetic gas are produced commercially.

And there’s plenty biomass to go around…
The DOE and the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently demonstrated how 1.3 billion tons of biomass could be produced exclusively for energy production in the United States each year with only modest changes in terrestrial crop practices.

With today’s best available biomass conversion technology, this quantity of biomass can replace about 30% of the petroleum our nation currently consumes. As conversion processes improve and we draw on a wider range of biomass resources, including aquatic forms of biomass, we should find that the potenŹtial for biofuels is even greater.
Make money fighting the “Hot Button Issue” of Global Warming…

The use of biofuel made from biomass can.

A principal advantage of biomass is its low greenhouse gas emission characteristic. Biomass does not spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as it absorbs an equal amount of carbon in growing as it releases when consumed as a fuel. Biomass contains less sulfur than coal, and consequently produces less SO2.

Biomass and Biofuel are already gaining popularity today…

Most cars on the road today in the U.S. can run on blends of up to 10% ethanol, and motor vehicle manufacturers already produce vehicles designed to run on much higher ethanol blends. Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and GM are among the automobile companies that sell “flexible-fuel” cars, trucks, and minivans that can use gasoline and ethanol blends ranging from pure gasoline up to 85% ethanol (E85).

By mid-2006, there were approximately six million E85-compatible vehicles on U.S. roads.

Oil Companies aren’t the only ones that can make Massive profits in energy markets…

The growing ethanol and biodiesel industries are providing jobs in plant construction, operations, and maintenance, mostly in rural communities.

According to the Renewable Fuels Association, the ethanol industry created almost 154,000 U.S. jobs in 2005 alone, boosting household income by $5.7 billion. It also contributed about $3.5 billion in tax revenues at the local, state, and federal levels.

Researchers at the Overseas Development Institute have argued that biofuels could help to reduce poverty in the developing world, through increased employment, wider economic growth multipliers and energy price effects.

Stimulate the economy with biofuel production from biomass.

Also learn…
Biomass Conversion Technologies
Economics of Developing Biofuels
Economic Analysis of Biofuel Programs
Agricultural Trade Liberalization
Biomass Market Country Overviews

Be in the know about…
Lifecycle Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Other Economic Impacts of Biofuel Production
Impact on Engines and Other Vehicle Components
Impact on Emissions and Vehicle Performance
Environmental Impact of Biomass to Biofuels
Historical Background of Biomass and Biofuels
Barriers and Challenges Biomass and Biofuels face.

Now more than ever alternative fuels such as biofuels derived from biomass are in the spotlight as the solution to avoiding petroleum nightmares, and the companies investing in the biomass and biofuel solution will be collecting wild profits in the years and decades to come.

By now you realize the growing importance of Biomass and Biofuels, and the impact Biomass and Biofuel will have in the near future, and the important role that biomass and biofuels already play today.

The best time to get in on a trend is before it takes off; don’t wait for the rest of the world to catch on to the Biomass and Biofuel trend…

The alternative fuels used at South Ferriby Cement Plant are Secondary Liquid Fuels made from industrial liquid wastes that cannot be recycled, such as paint, thinners, inks and varnishes, and Climafuel which is made from household residual and commercial waste that would otherwise go to landfill.

The 74% achieved by South Ferriby is a record for the plant. According to the British Cement Association’s BCA Performance Report, the 2007 level of replacement of fossil fuels among member companies reached 19.4%.

Emissions at the plant, such as oxides of nitrogen and sulphur, have declined by 20% and 43% respectively since alternative fuels were introduced in 2002.

By: Janie Stamford
Source: http://www.contractjournal.com

Yet several studies have shown that small quantities of CO2 later reabsorb into concrete, even decades after it is emplaced, when elements of the material combine with CO2 to form calcite.

A study appearing in the June 2009 Journal of Environmental Engineering (http://scitation.aip.org/eeo/) suggests that the re-absorption may extend to products beyond calcite, increasing the total CO2 removed from the atmosphere and lowering concrete’s overall carbon footprint.

While preliminary, the research by civil and environmental engineering professor Liv Haselbach of Washington State University re-emphasizes findings first observed nearly half a century ago–that carbon-based chemical compounds may form in concrete in addition to the mineral calcite-now in the light of current efforts to stem global warming.

“Even though these chemical species may equate to only five percent of the CO2 by-product from cement production, when summed globally they become significant,” said Haselbach. “Concrete is the most-used building material in the world.”

Researchers have known for decades that concrete absorbs CO2 to form calcite (calcium carbonate, CaCO3) during its lifetime, and even longer if the concrete is recycled into new construction–and because concrete is somewhat permeable, the effect extends beyond exposed surfaces.

While such changes can be a structural concern for concrete containing rebar, where the change in acidity can damage the metal over many decades, the CaCO3 is actually denser than some of the materials it replaces and can add strength.

Haselbach’s careful analysis of concrete samples appears to show that other compounds, in addition to calcite, may be forming. Although the compounds remain unidentified, she is optimistic about their potential.

“Understanding the complex chemistry of carbon dioxide absorption in concrete may help us develop processes to accelerate the process in such materials as recycled concrete or pavement. Perhaps this could help us achieve a nearly net-zero carbon footprint, for the chemical reactions at least, over the lifecycle of such products.”

That is the thrust of Haselbach’s current NSF-funded work, where she is now looking at evaluating the lifecycle carbon footprint of many traditional and novel concrete applications, and looking for ways to improve them.

“This work is part of the portfolio of studies that NSF is funding in this vital area,” added Bruce Hamilton, director of NSF’s environmental sustainability program and a supporter of Haselbach’s work. “Research relating to climate change is a priority.”

Electra is participating in this research and development program with Vancouver based private research facilities and University personnel.

The focus of the research will be on reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the use of concrete using the amorphous silica products produced by Electra from the PEM100 deposit. Samples of chalky geyserite from the Apple Bay project have been submitted for characterization as to suitability to act as binders.

“This is an exciting project and has the potential to result in a new source of revenue and growth for the Company,” stated Mr. J.T. Shearer, President of Electra Gold Ltd. “The market for environmentally-friendly materials as replacements for Portland cement is growing, with limited sources available. Electra Gold is in the fortunate position to hold active mining leases from which these materials may be produced.”

This paper describes a study of the effects of several factors on the strength of lightweight aggregate concrete composites: aggregate strength, w/c ratio and the porosities of the interfacial zone and within the hardened cement paste. Concrete samples with three different water cement ratios (i.e. 0.4, 0.44, 0.48) were compared. The crushing strengths of three grades of expanded clay lightweight aggregates (i.e. 25, 15, 5 mm) and the pore distributions of the hardened cement pastes were measured. Increasing the water/cement ratio was found to decrease the strength of lightweight aggregate concrete. The numbers of pores within the cement paste and in the aggregate/cement paste interfacial zone were found to increase.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V23-4N2D5X4-6&_user=2387683&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000057152&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=2387683&md5=09a03af51f6206b04e5256639ff9ef44

A plastic foam material comprises an aggregate of discrete elements made of substantially individual cellulose fibers combined with a cellulose starch and including a plurality of bubbles produced by a gas-generating agent. The discrete elements are suspended in a matrix also including a plurality of bubbles produced by a gas-generating agent. In a preferred embodiment the matrix is also made of substantially individual cellulose fibers combined with a cellulose starch and formed into a geometric shape. In another preferred embodiment the discrete aggregate elements are substantially closed-cell foam and the matrix is substantially open-cell foam. In yet another preferred embodiment the discrete aggregate elements are substantially closed-cell, and the foam matrix is also substantially closed-cell.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5106880.html