Wave Power II

I got a comment last night on an old (and rather silly) post I wrote last October, about new technology being developed to extract some of the massive amount of power that's moving around in Earth's oceans. A company called Biopower Sytems is designing generators that work with the flow of the oceans to harvest that energy, and their technology shows some real promise. Nick Bruse, the commenter in question, left a link to his podcast, called The Cleantech Show, in which he interviews Biopower Systems' Founder and CEO Dr. Tim Finnigan. I found the interview fascinating, and was encouraged on several levels. Dr. Finnigan seems to have a clear vision for where his start-up company is headed, solid engineering to back up his hopes, and a realistic view of where renewable energies will fit into the world's complete energy package. The whole interview is half an hour long, and well worth a listen, so here's the link. I found Bruse's interview style to be relaxed and informative, and I'll be checking out what else he's found that's happening in the wonderful world of clean technology. Thanks for the heads up Nick!

A New Notion In Motion

Remember playing on the merry-go-round as a kid? I'm not talking about the fancy amusement park version, with the pretty horses and dolphins and bench seats for the grandparents. I mean the big spinning metal plate, with waist high tubes coming out of the center likes spokes in a horizontal wheel, that you hung onto for dear life when the big kids got to running really fast around the outside to make the fun-machine go. It could be quite a ride, and a dangerous one at that, if you didn't station yourself at one of the inside spaces that had a protective bar to hold you in place. Of course, being on the outside was the best "ride," because that's where you really experienced the speed. This was a mixed blessing. I remember once being on the outside of a full merry-go-round during a busy day at the park, and the speed got so high that my feet got swept off the thing by the centrifugal force, and I actually was pulled under the rim as the joyous death machine spun above me. It was scary, and dampened my enthusiasm for spinning, probably laying the psychological groundwork for later years of motion sickness. I now tend to think of that particular piece of playground equipment as a merry-go-flying. Do they even have them in public parks anymore? I would think in this age of PC lawsuits they would have been banned by the "concerned citizens for helmets, padding and reflective tape brigade."

What those merry-go-rounds really needed was a protective barrier on the outside to keep the little people firmly on board. You never hear of diners flying out of the restaurant at the Space Needle do you? That's because there are walls, obviously, and because the restaurant just doesn't spin that quickly. There's also none of that jarring velocity shifting that happens when the motion comes from an irregular power source like the legs of a twelve-year-old kid. No, nice steady electrical current works much better for turning the top floor of a building, especially a restaurant. You end up with much less soup in your lap that way. (Not that I wouldn't end up wearing my soup anyway. I am a notorious food klutz, and have yet to make it through an entire day as an adult without dropping something of the food variety onto myself, the floor, the table, or any other unfortunate surface that happens to be in the vicinity when I am eating or preparing food, but I digress.)

Think about the dynamics of applying an inconsistent, and sometimes violent, source of power to turning an entire story of a building. What if the restaurant at the Space Needle were powered by wind, like a giant windmill? Not only would the motion be inconsistent, potentially spilling the aforementioned soup, but it would also be unreliable. Some diners might get swept around so fast that the nearby scenery whipped by in a blur, while others, who came on less eventful weather days, might have to be content to stare at the parking lot because the restaurant was in stagnant mode. Even if the building in question didn't contain a restaurant, but was an office building instead, it would take some physical and mental adjusting to the fact that sometimes you would be moving, and sometimes you would be sitting still--and occasionally you could be jerking from one to the other. It might be a little freaky. Needless to say, some people might actually like it; I'm just assuming it wouldn't be for everybody.

Now apply that notion of wind-powered motion to every floor of a skyscraper, each spinning independently, according to the wind-speed at its own altitude. Sound too "out there?" Why would anyone build a windmill building anyway, and could such a thing actually make it off the drawing board? Ask the folks in Dubai, who are planning to start building a "windscraper" within the next six months, or the folks in Chicago who have the same notion. The primary reason? According to Ben Longo at Gizmodo, one of these buildings could power itself and ten other buildings with its revolving floors--as long as the weather holds, that is. (In that regard, this seems like a good fit for the Windy City, don't you think?)

I assume self-generating power isn't the only motivation for the windscraper notion. Some people will pay a lot of money for a really good view, and it's very likely that an ever changing panorama would be worth a pretty penny to rich people with strong enough stomachs to handle the inconsistency of the ride. I'm guessing that strong stomachs won't be the only requirement. They probably will have to take other things into account to accommodate the motion, too. For example, no wheeled chairs, or carts, or appliances allowed, or every time the wind picks up some one's going to have to chase down the furniture that rolled toward the outside of the building. No high heels in that environment, either. It's just too risky. I would also strongly suggest sippy cups.

Go have a look at the Gizmodo post. There are artist's renderings of the building conceived by architect, David Fisher, and a video to give you a better notion of what the idea involves. As a firm believer in the desirability and potential of alternative energy, I find this notion intriguing, if somewhat ambitious. Hey, if it works, more power to 'em. Just don't ask me to move into one of these buildings. I might go for a ride, just to check it out, but let's make it a short one. I still haven't gotten over that traumatic merry-go-round experience as a child. That, and I really am getting tired of spilling my soup.

Hat tip: Futurismic

Hey, I Was Right!!

It's not often that I feel the need to quote myself, but I predicted something scientific and space-related that might actually turn out to be true, and now I have to revel in my brief moment of rightness. Back in July of 2006, I read a report from NASA that the Cassini spacecraft had found evidence for lakes of liquid methane on Titan, one of Saturn's moons. I took a mental leap--not a huge one for the real sciency types, but a respectable leap for me:

Scientists will continue to observe the areas, looking for evidence like changes in size, or surface roughness stirred by winds, to indicate whether they've guessed correctly. If they're right, Titan is "the only body in the solar system besides Earth known to possess lakes." Not exactly the place you'd want to go for a summer vacation. One usually heads to a lake for fresh air and exercise, but Titan's not really a fresh air environment, is it? All that methane and ethane might make it a little hard to head out for a hike, or row a canoe, wouldn't you say? What a shame; it would be such an adventure to head to a lakeside cabin off-world. Oh well, there's got to be a bright side, right? Hmmm, liquid methane...liquid methane...sounds like a possible built-in fuel depot to me. That's it!! Titan can be the gas station on the way to some other cool vacation spot that we'll discover any day now. It's not quite as fun as finding Shangri-La on some other planet, but it will have to do.

My big prediction, somewhat flippantly expressed, was that someday Titan's lakes could fuel our journeys to other exciting destinations. Guess what? NASA thinks I'm right!! Well, okay, NASA doesn't know anything about me and my little bloggy predictions, but I can at least say that NASA agrees with me. NASA is testing a methane rocket engine, hoping to take advantage of the abundance of methane just waiting to be harvested from our neighboring planets. Patrick Barry, writing at NASA's Science website, says that methane engines "could eventually be key to deep space exploration."

Some of the advantages to the methane engine include the fact that liquid methane can be stored at a higher temperature than liquid hydrogen (the current fuel of choice for the soon-to-be-retired space shuttle.) This would mean less insulation, and thus less weight to haul off of planet Earth. Liquid methane, according to Barry, is also denser than liquid hydrogen, which would make the fuel tanks smaller, lighter and, ultimately, cheaper. Barry quotes project manager Terri Tramel of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center as adding safety to the list of methane's perks:

Methane also gets high marks for human safety. While some rocket fuels are potentially toxic, "methane is what we call a green propellant," Tramel says. "You don't have to put on a HAZMAT suit to handle it like fuels used on many space vehicles."

Here's the gravy, though, as far as the NASA-proving-me-right part of this little self-congratulatory post goes. In our solar system, methane is basically ubiquitous, so rockets wouldn't have to carry fuel for the whole journey along with them. They could pick some up along the way:

But the key attraction for methane is that it exists or can be made on many worlds that NASA might want to visit someday, including Mars.

Although Mars is not rich in methane, methane can be manufactured there via the Sabatier process: Mix some carbon dioxide (CO2) with hydrogen (H), then heat the mixture to produce CH4 and H20--methane and water. The Martian atmosphere is an abundant source of carbon dioxide, and the relatively small amount of hydrogen required for the process may be brought along from Earth or gathered in situ from Martian ice.

Traveling further out in the solar system, methane becomes even easier to come by. On Saturn's moon Titan, it is literally raining liquid methane. Titan is dotted with lakes and rivers of methane and other hydrocarbons that could one day serve as fuel depots. Imagine, a methane-powered rocket could allow a robotic probe to land on the surface of Titan, gather geological samples, refill its tanks, and blast off to return those samples to Earth. Such a sample-return mission from the outer solar system has never been attempted.

The atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune all contain methane, and Pluto has frozen methane ice on its surface. New kinds of missions to these worlds may become possible with methane rockets.

So, Titan may well turn out to be an interplanetary gas station, as well as a geological destination-of-interest in its own right. Speaking of destinations-of-interest, head over to the NASA article if you want to watch the video of the new rocket in action in the Mojave desert. It's way cool, and downright pretty, with this really impressive blue flame. They're still working on the project, with tweaks to be done before a methane-fueled rocket can blast off the launchpad, heading for fabulous holiday destinations like the Lakes of Titan, but the pretty blue test was a promising start.

The best part of all this scientific and spacey advancement, from my perspective? I got to be right! (Hey, cut me some slack. It doesn't happen that often.)

Beer--It's Not Just For Drinking Anymore

This is funny, in a "good idea" kind of way. You've heard of beer batter? How about a beer battery? (via Popular Mechanics)

Breaking The Laws Of Physics?

Picture this: You live in a world with unlimited energy resources and next to no pollution. No one freezes in winter, or roasts in summer anymore. No one starves either, because food production, transportation and storage have become almost universally affordable, due to those previously-mentioned unlimited energy resources. Cars not only cost less to make and drive, they run forever without needing the tank filled. In fact, there is no tank, because there is no gas, because the cars don't need it anymore. How's it sounding so far? It gets better. International relations are changed forever. There's no more kowtowing to tinpot dictators because their country happens to sit on top of abundant oil reserves. (There aren't even any more "evil" oil companies, because, as I mentioned earlier, there's no more need for oil and gas.) Space travel becomes commonplace with all that unlimited energy to lift us out of the gravity well. Humans settle colonies from the Moon to 581c, and unite to create a Federation of Planets that bring abundance and prosperity to far-flung alien worlds. Universal peace and brotherhood overcome all the conflicts of mankind, worlds without end. Well, okay, that last bit is just plain ridiculous; people will always find things to fight about, unless the whole sin thing goes bye-bye.

Does all this sound like some ultra-sappy massively idealistic science fiction plot? Of course it does. Everybody knows there's no such thing as unlimited energy. Or is there? What if some people have actually pulled off the impossible, and created a perpetual motion machine, that not only puts out more energy than is put into it, but actually puts out 400% more energy? Wouldn't that transform the world almost as completely as any massively idealistic science fiction plot could envision? (Let's put aside for now all the inevitable sci fi counter-plots that are sure to spring up, in which evil oil empires do everything in their petroleum-enhanced power to destroy the new technology and everyone who ever saw the plans for it. Let's just take it as a given that the oil people either aren't as evil as conspiracy theorists paint them, or that they are too incompetent to pull off the destruction of the future hope of all mankind. Anything else takes us too far down rabbit trails which don't fit into my desired scenario, and it's my blog, so I get to write what I want. You can complain and pose alternate options in the comments if you like.)

Okay, now that we've determined the outcome of the invention of the perpetual motion machine, let's talk about who would be loopy enough to announce to the world that they've accomplished something that flies in the face of physics as currently understood by the people who understand such things. The company making the claim of this breakthrough is an Irish enterprise called Steorn, headed by CEO Sean McCarthy. According to their website, "Steorn is a leading Intellectual Property development company. Our latest development is Orbo, our magnetic energy generation technology." It is this magnetic energy generation technology that Steorn claims, "...is a technology that produces free, clean and constant energy. It can be applied to power products ranging from portable music players to cars." The company says they will make it available, after scientific validation in July, for free, allowing developers to design products built around their promised physics-defying breakthrough. Is this a sci fi kind of scenario, or what? Not only does it seem that these people have developed the answer to many of mankind's problems, but they want to give it away. It's really not possible at this point not to ask, "What's the catch?"

The catch is that Steorn is claiming they have done something that most scientists insist absolutely cannot be done. Gizmag explains it like this:

In science, the term efficiency is used to describe the discrepancy between the energy that goes into a system and the useful energy output of the system. The first law of thermodynamics states that, because energy cannot be created or destroyed, efficiency cannot exceed 100%. The second law states that, since matter and energy are constantly progressing towards a state of equilibrium with the environment, the efficiency of a system will inevitably deteriorate. Steorn, however, asserts that the “meticulous” placement of magnets can allow a magnetic object to progress indefinitely along a path in such a way that when it returns to its starting position, it has gained energy. McCarthy claims that such an arrangement can result in up to 400% efficiency. This system breaks the laws of thermodynamics with such blatant contempt that, in a Newtonian universe, all Steorn members would be thrown in physics prison. Indeed the devil-may-care attitude Steorn’s prototype has towards the universal constants is part of the reason the company had such trouble in their initial attempts to persuade scientists to test it. McCarthy claims that 90% of scientists they approached refused to even acknowledge the possibility. As for the 10% dared to witness it in action, McCarthy states that all were convinced.

The consequences for the world, if McCarthy and the still anonymous 10% are correct, will be nothing short of epic. Not only would it be a falsification of the laws of physics, it would provide infinite, free, clean energy for the entire global population. It would almost eliminate pollution, provide power to the hundreds of millions of people who currently live without it and could feasibly construct a society where the essential needs of the people are automatically taken care of.

Wouldn't that pop the lid right off the popper? Many think this is a hoax or a scam, but Gizmag makes a good case for Steorn having little incentive to fool the public, and an established business to lose if they sacrifice their reputation for fifteen minutes of infamy. This one is worth reading for yourself, folks, so head over to catch the rest of the Gizmag article. Then we wait till July for the "public unveiling." Will July plant the seeds for a massively idealistic science fiction future, or will the laws of physics prevail? Tune in this summer for further developments.

Fun With Alternative Energy

Okay, this could be a lot of fun:

A thin film of plastic which conducts electricity and produces solar power could be the basis for a revolution in the way we light our homes and design clothes.

They're talking about OLEDs here--organic light emitting devices. How you ask, could that possibly be fun?

Because the devices are thin and flexible, lighting and electronic display screens could for the first time be created on almost any material, so that clothes and packaging can display electronic information.

What's not fun about that? Not enough information yet? Need some examples?

The devices' uses could vary from lighting that is many times more efficient than current bulbs to clothes whose colour can be changed at will and beer cans that display the latest football results.

Fun enough for you? So how is that possible?

The devices exploit a discovery made around 15 years ago that some polymers have the unusual property of either turning electricity into light, or light into electricity, depending on how the devices are made.

Are there cool and practical uses for this technology--amazing things like an alternative energy source that can be rolled up and carried along on a mountain trek, windows that double as lights at night, and electronic clothing for emergency personnel that can have updatable messages written across them in glowing letters? Yep. Wouldn't such clothing be fun at parties? Again, yep, but none of this stuff is really ready yet. Research happens.

Want to read more?

Science Daily

Have fun.

Hat tip: Futurismic

More Nano Power!!

Last week I told you all about the thrilling new nanotechnology development that may soon let your walking shoes power your iPod. It was such an exciting thing to learn that I know that you are dying to find out what else is going on in the wonderful world of nanotech. The yearning for more nano-knowledge is probably gnawing at you even now, and you feel very much like the desperate person who has been given a single tantalizing bite of cheesecake, only to see the rest of the delightful dessert accidentally upended onto an anthill. The suffering is, no doubt, intense. I simply can't be responsible for that kind of discomfort. The mere thought pains me, so today I will ease our mutual misery by bringing you news of yet another new nanoventure, only this one will be "better, stronger, faster," like Steve Austin after the upgrade. Last week's nanopower invention could run a cellphone; today's nanopower invention could possibly run satellites, or other spacecraft.

Our old friends, carbon nanotubes, having achieved near-universal-usefulness status with their extreme strength and lightness, are trying to further their foothold on ubiquity, by making their way into the realm of solar power. John Toon, writing at Georgia Tech Research News, explains how 3D solar cells, constructed using carbon nanotubes, could change the shape of solar, and thus of spacecraft power:

Unique three-dimensional solar cells that capture nearly all of the light that strikes them could boost the efficiency of photovoltaic (PV) systems while reducing their size, weight and mechanical complexity.

The new 3D solar cells capture photons from sunlight using an array of miniature "tower” structures that resemble high-rise buildings in a city street grid. The cells could find near-term applications for powering spacecraft, and by enabling efficiency improvements in photovoltaic coating materials, could also change the way solar cells are designed for a broad range of applications.

“Our goal is to harvest every last photon that is available to our cells,” said Jud Ready, a senior research engineer in the Electro-Optical Systems Laboratory at the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI). “By capturing more of the light in our 3D structures, we can use much smaller photovoltaic arrays. On a satellite or other spacecraft, that would mean less weight and less space taken up with the PV system.”

You caught how the 3D nature of the little solar towers catches more of the light, right? Not only is there more surface area to absorb the photons, but the grid "traps" the light, rather than letting it bounce off the surface, as occurs now with standard solar panels. Light can bounce within the towers, allowing the new system to capture more of the photons--"virtually all of the light that strikes them." The towers also absorb sunlight coming from any angle, so the sun doesn't have to be directly overhead for peak efficiency. In fact, according to Ready, these towers become more efficient when the Sun's light isn't coming directly at them.

Satellites could see a major upgrade as a result of this directional versatility. Since their solar panels would no longer have to face the light directly, the mechanisms wouldn't have to be in place to turn them all day long, like a giant photon-collecting rotisserie. This is a big improvement. The Air Force, aware of the advantage this new system could provide, has been funding some of the research related to this project. Satellites that don't need extra bells and whistles to keep their solar collectors turned to where the Sun shines could be smaller, lighter, and cheaper than their ancestors. ("Smaller, lighter, cheaper" is the carbon nanotube addendum to "better, stronger, faster.") All of the above applies to other Sun-fueled spacecraft as well. Probes, cameras, space stations, commercial spaceliners and space hotels could all benefit from harvesting more of those useful photons emanating from the Sun.

Space isn't the only place where this technology could improve photon collection. Earthly solar panels could get a big boost from the improvement to their efficiency. According to Maria Surma Manka, at Green Options, the new way of structuring solar cells could up their juice output significantly--"These three-dimensional panels produce about 60 times more current than regular solar cells. " Wow. 60 times more current? That could give solar power a much higher usefulness quotient, don't you think? All those panels mushrooming on the roofs of Californians might soon get a whole lot more effective at powering the houses below them. It might even make the mushrooming spread to other territories. I wonder if the nano-enhancements would make solar power have potential even in soggy places like Oregon? (Don't mushrooms like it damp?) Wouldn't that be an incredible feat? A solar-powered Oregon. Only carbon nanotubes could pull that off.

God did a good thing when He invented carbon nanotubes.

Hat tip: Green Options, via Bill Hobbs at Ecotality

Nano Power!!

It's been a while since I read anything fun about nanotechnology, so I went hunting today. Searching high and low, I combed the Internet for any signs of life in the nanoworld. Okay, that's a massive exaggeration. All I did was head over to LiveScience.com and peruse their latest headlines. This one by Bill Christensen--"Tiny Generator Would Make Electricity While You Walk"--sounded promising. What's the first thing anyone learns about nanotech? It's tiny. So, I clicked my way on over to see whether these "tiny generators" were small enough to qualify for nano-status.

They do, indeed. What I found was a nifty new accomplishment by Professor Zhong Lin Wang of the Georgia Institute of Technology:

Wang has created a tiny nanogenerator that produces a continuous flow of electricity by harvesting mechanical energy from its surroundings. It can produce energy from ultrasonic waves, mechanical movement or even blood flow.

Christensen explains that Wang's tiny power plants are constructed of lots of little wires which flex with the motion around them. The flexing builds an electric charge in the wires, which when moved enough to contact a "collection plate," deposit their electric load. Enough of those wires added together can gather tiny amounts of direct current. We are not looking at lighting Chicago with this method of electrical generation. We're not even talking about lighting your house. However, some of the little electronic devices most of us rely on every day to ease our way through the modern world, like cellphones and iPods? These we might have a shot at juicing with nanogenerators.

So many things that we do every day create force that goes to waste. We stand up. We sit down. We turn our heads. We drum our fingers. We breathe and blink our eyes. All that movement could certainly wiggle a few wires. Of course, there's the question of how you place those wires and collection plates where they can reap this power whirlwind. No one is going to want eyelid power stations, are they? (Well, some people might, judging by the body piercing craze.) Running electronic devices off of various body implants might be edging us a little closer than we'd like into Borg territory--merging man with machine. However, there are other options. Putting aside the notion of implants, how would you like to charge your phone just by taking a stroll?

Wang and his group believe that the nanowires could produce as much as 4 watts per cubic centimeter. "If you had a device like this in your shoes when you walked, you would be able to generate your own small current to power small electronics," Wang noted. "Anything that makes the nanowires move within the generator can be used for generating power. Very little force is required to move them."

Here's a scenario for you: You crash your car in the middle of nowhere, barely escaping the Hollywoodesque inferno. Miraculously, you are completely unharmed. The miracle is not all-inclusive, however. You go to call for help, only to discover your cellphone is dead--no hope of charging it in your recently-exploded Subaru. (Oh wait, Subarus are supposed to be really safe. Let's make it a Pinto.) What do you do? Why, you start walking toward the nearest town, of course. The phone charges while you're hoofing it, and the rescue team meets you before you can make it a quarter of the way to the local hamlet. (By the way, the walking toward town is a good idea even if it's not going to charge your phone. I mean what else are you going to do, sit there listening to soothing music on your iPod? That's going to have to be charged eventually too, so you might as well get going.)

Needless to say, at some point we'll get over our Borgaphobia and submit to the implants. After all, eventually we're going to find it inconvenient to have those little generators limited to our shoes. What if we want to go for a walk on the beach--barefoot, of course--and we need to make an important call? No, the shoe thing just won't work long-term. Christensen did mention that the nanogenerators could collect power from flowing blood. I think the answer will be miniature floating power stations, circulating around in our bloodstreams. While they're at it, they can check our blood sugar, and clean our arteries, and balance our hormones, and... You get the picture. I think we should put them in dogs, too. The power they generate could run yet-to-be invented electro-gadget dog collars that keep Phydeaux from running away, and peeing on the carpet, and other important pet/pet-owner bones of contention. I'm sure if we think about it hard enough, we will also find a way to use these bloodstream nanogenerators to solve all the world's other problems, including terrorism and halitosis. There is just no limit to the benefits of nanotech.

"Exploiting The Jet Stream"

Looking for something new on the energy horizon? How about something new from something old? For your economy-and-ecology-friendly power-producing pleasure, I offer you the flying generator. That's right--there are alternative energy ideas currently taking flight that give a twist to that merry childhood plaything: the kite. These flying generators are designed to take advantage of the fact the wind blows a lot harder and more steadily way up high, up where the weather moves. All that power blowing around over our heads could be lighting cities here on the ground--if we could only capture it--and Economist.com has the story of more than one engineer who believes that he's found the answer to doing just that. Won't it be cool if they can pull it off--as long as they can keep the birdies and airplanes safe, that is?

Just as a side note, from a "decorating the sky" perspective, it would be extra cool if the flying generators can have streaming tails with colorful bows on them, too, just like real kites. They might as well make them pretty while they're at it, don't you think? Have you seen some of the land-based wind-farms? Visual blights, every one. I vote for flying generators with style. Anybody else agree, or am I flying solo?

Hat tip: Futurismic

The Power Of Hydrogen

I followed a link from Instapundit this afternoon about a new concept car from Ford that is, according to Popular Mechanics, "the world’s first working plug-in, fuel-cell, hydrogen-powered car." That was pretty cool--a real car with hydrogen fuel-cell power. I wanted a ride. The short little blurb about Ford's new hybrid then sent me on a rabbit trail to an article from the November 2006 issue of Popular Mechanics. It's a very interesting primer on the current state of Hydrogen fuel technology, examining hydrogen as a source of power, its transportation and storage, practical uses, and also the various sources for that hydrogen. I'm not going to synopsize the article; although it's not horribly long, there's an awful lot packed into it, and Jeff Wise at PM has already done all that work. It would be a shame to duplicate his efforts when I really have nothing useful or entertaining to add. I will, however, encourage you to read it for yourself. Wise explains lots of things I never knew before about the mechanics of getting energy from hydrogen, the environmental cost of current methods of hydrogen production, the history of hydrogen technology (it's been used on the space shuttle for decades) and where it's headed, including a look at infrastructure. If you're curious how close we are to a hydrogen economy, go have a look.

Note: Popular Mechanics is also promising a cover story in May on the future of plug-in hybrids that ought to be interesting. I'll try to keep an eye out for it. Let me know if you spot it first.

An X Prize For Fuel Economy

Y'all remember the X Prize, right? $10 million went to the team that built the first private spaceship to make it to space. The contest prompted big advances in the baby private-space-flight industry, and continued X Prize-type challenges keep spurring the new industry forward. Now there are not only private companies contracting with NASA to take payloads into space, but there are many companies working on various commercial space projects, from space hotels to space elevators. This financial incentive thing gets people involved--and gets results. $10 million can certainly give little guys with big ideas some incentive.

So, what about applying that principle for more Earthly goals? Nick Bunkley, at The New York Times is reporting that the X Prize Foundation is set to offer even more than $10 million to whoever can develop the first "commercially viable car that can travel 100 miles on a gallon of gasoline." They're not looking for pie-in-the-sky here. They want to prompt the development of vehicles that would work and be affordable in the real world.

...the organizers want to ensure that vehicles entered in the contest, which will compete in races in 2009 to determine the winner, are commercially viable. Entries must be production-ready, unlike many of the fantastical concept cars that are presented at auto shows. Each team must prepare a business plan for building at least 10,000 of the vehicles at a cost comparable to that of cars available now.

100 miles to the gallon of gas, and an affordable car to boot? That would make it possible for folks here in Portland to drive all the way to Disneyland (a very important destination) without stopping to fuel up. Wow. Sounds almost too good to be true, and if it weren't for the competition and financial incentive, I doubt this would go very far. Bunkley explains that the problem isn't making a car that can get 100 mpg, but in making that car at a price people can actually afford to pay. The industry is not currently geared for the rapid changes and big risks necessary to shift from the 20 mpg the average car gets today to the 100 mph that they're aiming to achieve with the impetus of the competition. That $10 million shot in the arm, though, could make all the difference. The X Prize approach has really produced results in reaching for the stars. It'll be exciting to see where this new prize can drive the automobile industry.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Hydrogen Fuel Cells: "On Demand" Energy

Here's an alternative energy tidbit for you. Clean, cheap energy remains the Holy Grail of the modern scientific world (unless you rank the cure for cancer higher.) Among other approaches, ambitious companies are working hard on practical ways to make hydrogen fuel our cars. Bill Hobbs, writing yesterday at Ecotalityblog, says that Ecotality’s Hydratus technology combines magnesium and water, and the reaction between them produces hydrogen "on demand," as a vehicle's fuel cell has need of it. On demand sounds good, doesn't it? So does the idea of a fuel whose only byproduct is water, which is one of the lures of hydrogen as a source of energy, and Hobbs says this new technology can power a bus. The Smart People at Ecotality think they're onto something big.

Now, I'm not a chemist, or a physicist or any other kind of "ist," but I still found the short post about the Hydratus interesting. Although, maybe I found it interesting because I'm not an "ist." So far there are several comments from other Smart People in response to the post, explaining why using magnesium is not a net gain in terms of energy output, requiring too much energy to produce the magnesium which produces the hydrogen, and how there are other byproducts to deal with as well when magnesium is involved. Ecotality’s CEO, Jonathan Read, sounds awfully confident, though, claiming, "Hydrogen on-demand is going to be what catapults hydrogen from being a great concept to a great reality." Maybe the company is one or two steps ahead of the commenters. Smart People debates--fine entertainment for your Wednesday morning. I hope Ecotality comes out ahead on this one, though. It would be nice to see more really tangible advances on the alternative energy front.

Hat tip: Instapundit

How Cars Help The Environment

Here's an interesting article that goes along with my theory that technology will be the solution to our environmental issues, and has already contributed greatly to environmental improvements, despite the blame it gets for modern day pollution. Dwight R. Lee, at TCS Daily, spends some time delving in to one of the main sources of the environmental woes of yesteryear, and concludes that one of our most prevalent current technologies, the internal combustion engine (ICE), is a Godsend when compared with the primary sources of horsepower from the past--i.e. horses, and oxen, and mules. Those of us who grew up with cars instead of wagons don't contemplate very often how much of a difference the automobile has made to the pollution levels of cities, or, I should say, we tend to think that the effect has been negative. All that car exhaust is dreadful. There used to be fresh air, by golly! We think of that pollution and forget that before the car, when folks rode into town on noble steeds, there was pollution of an entirely different sort.

Livestock flatulence, according to a report from the U.N.'s Food and Agricultural Organization, cited by Lee, accounts for 18% of today's greenhouse gases, and all the cars, planes, trucks, trains, boats, and every other form of transportation in the world added together don't equal that level of greenhouse gas output. Livestock produce methane, too, which Lee points out is a much more potent greenhouse gas than the carbon dioxide which gasoline engines emit. Greenhouse gases, as we all know, are the favorite whipping boy for those concerned about global warming, so this should make the world look more favorably on modern transportation. Gasoline engines produces less gases, and less potent gases than their animal counterparts. Score one for the ICE.

Now, if livestock flatulence produces 18% of the greenhouse gases of today, imagine what they were producing a hundred years ago, when horses filled our cities and our farms. Indeed, the general level of pollution created by a culture dependant upon animals for transport and food production, as well as food, goes beyond just dealing with the gases. The manure itself was a pollution nightmare:

Consider the effects of horse emissions in our towns and cities at the beginning of the last century. The air and water pollution from horse manure contributed to a death rate far greater than that generated by the pollution from cars and trucks. No one denies that photochemical smog from gas powered vehicles is a health risk, but it is not nearly the health risk of cholera, typhoid, typhus, yellow fever, diphtheria and malaria. These diseases killed tens of thousands of Americans in the early 20-century and these deaths began to decline as cars and trucks replaced horses and wagons.

And the improvements in the environment weren't limited to just the towns and cities. Before gasoline power arrived, beasts of burden were polluting agricultural communities along with meat producing animals such as cows, chickens and pigs. By eliminating horses, mules and oxen on farms, tractors and other types of gas-powered farm machinery greatly reduced the problem of animal waste that environmentalists, with justification, still complain about. This also eliminated the need to grow the food required by millions of farm animals. It has been estimated that it took about 93 million acres of land in 1900 to grow the food to fuel the farm animals that were soon replaced by motorized farm machinery. Much of that land has now gone back to woodlands.

Score two for the ICE. Lee isn't finished with his defense of the engine, either. He addresses one more aspect of the flap over flatulence, and how the ICE isn't getting the credit it deserves when it comes to protecting the environment:

Instead of giving credit to internal combustion for its contribution to environmental quality, the news on the harmful effects of animal flatulence has resulted in another culprit being blamed for global warming; meat eaters. According to a recent article in the "Christian Science Monitor," some environmentalists are urging people to become vegetarians to combat global warming. There is no mention that this vegetarian solution, if taken seriously, would make the internal combustion engine even more critical to environmental protection. Imagine the amount of animal manure and methane that would be produced growing all those extra vegetables without motorized farm equipment.

Score three for the ICE. Lee goes on to discuss improvements in ICE technology which are reducing transportation's pollution production all the time. He also predicts that someday a superior technology will come along to replace the combustion engine, further limiting the pollution cost of human transport. My prediction is that his prediction is correct.

Going With The Flow

What's 16 feet wide, underwater, and a new potential source for alternative energy? Hint: It enjoys rainy days and likes to "go with the flow." Give up? It's a "tidal turbine." We've all heard of wind turbines, of course, and most of us have probably driven by the giant wind farms that have sprung up in breezy spots across America (if you live in America, that is.) Well, now there's a sort of "current farm" going into New York City's East River, in a channel where ships don't pass, but lots of water still does. According to Erik Sofge, at Popular Mechanics, "six 35-kilowatt turbines scheduled to be installed by mid-March" will be providing power to a supermarket and a parking garage, and there are plans to add hundreds more turbines, if things go well.

One of the questions this test is designed to answer is whether problems specific to the underwater location, such as barnacles, will be an impediment, or whether the giant rotors will just keep spinning. Water is a force to be reconned with, so I'm betting that current and the grinding of the turbines keep the barnacles at bay (so to speak.) With all that spinning going on, however, there's also concern for river life. This test should also determine whether the river's residents can go with the flow. The designers have tried to make the power producers fish friendly. Just as wind-turbine designs have to take into account the safety of our feathered friends, these underwater ones have beeen built with Nemo in mind. The rotors turn slowly, and have blunt edges, and hopefully that will prevent them from committing fishicide.

If all goes according to plan, and the "current farm" is expanded to full capacity, the resulting power from this one East River location could equal 10 megawatts, which Sofge says could run 4,000 homes. When that kind of potential gets extrapolated across the country, "...our rivers and estuaries could provide up to 130,000 gigawatt-hours per year — about half the yearly production of the country's dams." Sounds pretty exciting, eh? One might almost say electrifying.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Affluence Or Poverty--Which Is Better For The Environment?

I was going to stay away from the brouhaha surrounding Al Gore's energy bill, and his proclivity to preach about reducing greenhouse gas emissions while himself producing a ton of them, but I read a piece by James H. Joyner Jr., at TCS Daily, that was such good common sense that I had to pass it along. He basically gives Gore a pass on the question of hypocrisy, saying that he doesn't know enough about Gore's stated policies, and carbon offsets and whatnot to render a judgement. His focus is more on the question of whether affluence or technologically backward poverty is better for the environment, and humanity. Here's a snippet:

Where Gore and I differ is that my aim is for more people to get to live like Gore. While environmental degradation in general and global warming in particular are real problems, certainly a serious case can be made that they pale in comparison with the ravages of poverty. Further, if millions of people not starving to death isn't its own reward, UC-Berkeley professor emeritus of energy and resources Jack Hollander explains in The Real Environmental Crisis: Why Poverty, Not Affluence, Is the Environment's Number One Enemy, that, contrary to conventional wisdom, as societies become more affluent, they produce less pollution. That's not particularly surprising, when you think about it, as those whose basic human needs are met have both the inclination and resources to worry about cleaning up their environment.

Joyner makes the case for something that I have believed for a long time; the solution to our environmental problems lies in more and better technology, not less technology. He quotes Jesse Ausubel, the director of Rockefeller University's Program for the Human Environment:

Inefficiency always costs much. Around the year 1000, before the invention of good chimneys, people in cold climates centered their lives around an open fire in the middle of a room with a roof louvered high to carry out the smoke, and most of the heat. Open fireplaces demanded constant replenishing and thus a large woodpile behind every house. A smart stove did not emerge until 1744. Benjamin Franklin's invention greatly reduced the amount of fuel required and, thus, the size of the woodpile was reduced for those who could afford the stove.

Advancing technology is constantly moving us forward in our efforts to preserve our environment, giving us more energy efficient, and less polluting wood stoves, cars, light bulbs, factories, furnaces, sewage treatment, batteries, water heaters, commuter trains, photographic equipment, and even nuclear power plants. That's just off the top of my head. New technologies are also taking things that once would have gone to landfills and giving them a second life, making more and more use of recyclable materials. Have you seen some of the decking materials and fabrics they are making out of old milk containers? The key to environmental responsibility does not lie in turning off all the amenities of modern life. (Heck, if it weren't for technology, most of us wouldn't even know there were global environmental issues.) It lies in promoting prosperity and creativity which will continue to address the rightly-raised environmental concerns of society--with technological progress. Joyner's got a bit more to say. Go have a look.

Plug It In

Encouraging news on the alternative energy front. James Woolsey, former director of the CIA, writing in the Wall Street Journal, is predicting "major progress toward independence, spurred by market forces and a portfolio of rapidly developing oil-replacing technologies." He explains that the development of alternative liquid fuels is getting a boost, as scientific leaps are changing the fuel production boundaries. Among other advances, new biotechnologies are making it possible to produce ethanol from a wide range of plants other than corn. This is an improvement because growing corn is a very land and fuel intensive process, which limits corn's potential ability to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. With scientific advances, allowing more fuel production from much less land and far less fuel used in the growing process, production costs for ethanol are declining, and our capacity to produce enough quantities of alternative fuels to be a meaningful challenge to the global supremacy of petroleum-based energy is increasing. This is good news for the new year. I don't think there are many of us who don't see the advantages of a "grow-it-yourself" fuel supply, both for assuring adequate energy resources here at home, and limiting the influence of the often despotic regimes that always seem to be the ones in control of the oil reserves abroad.

Of course, we've seen promises about alternative fuels for years, and the oil producers of the world have had a few tricks up their sleeves. OPEC has driven down prices in the past, effectively driving the competition out of business. Woolsey says this time OPEC may not be able to stifle innovation by lowering oil prices:

The change is being driven by innovations in the batteries that now power modern electronics. If hybrid gasoline-electric cars are provided with advanced batteries (GM's announcement said its choice would be lithium-ion) having improved energy and power density--variants of the ones in our computers and cell phones--dozens of vehicle prototypes are now demonstrating that these "plug-in hybrids" can more than double hybrids' overall (gasoline) mileage. With a plug-in, charging your car overnight from an ordinary 110-volt socket in your garage lets you drive 20 miles or more on the electricity stored in the topped-up battery before the car lapses into its normal hybrid mode. If you forget to charge or exceed 20 miles, no problem, you then just have a regular hybrid with the insurance of liquid fuel in the tank. And during those 20 all-electric miles you will be driving at a cost of between a penny and three cents a mile instead of the current 10-cent-a-mile cost of gasoline.

All of this would have the added advantage, according to Woolsey, of reducing vehicle carbon emissions by 60%, as well. Read the rest. It's a good start to the new year.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Note: The info about reduced carbon emissions reminded me that I wanted to pass on a link to a book I read online a couple of weeks ago. I didn't even have to go to the library. I just turned on my laptop and read the whole thing. The book is Fallen Angels by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle & Michael Flynn, and it was completely enjoyable from this sci fi fan's perspective. It's set in the not-so-distant future, when the "green" movement has taken the reins of power, and dramatically changed the world's energy usage. Problem is, it turns out the only thing preventing the start of another ice age was the presence of all those greenhouse gasses coming from the Earth's infestation of humanity!! With the carbon emissions virtually eliminated, the ice age cometh. Science fiction, by the way, is now illegal, and the Earth's governments are at war with "inappropriate technology," including the space stations still orbiting the planet, and their inhabitants. It's a totally fun read, complete with underground sci fi conventions, government goons, and corn genetically-altered to grow plastic. I'd say it was a page-turner, but since I read it online, I guess I'll have to say it was a "scroller" instead. It's lame, but that's the best I could come up with. Oh well.

Wave Power

Frequently, as I surf the web, I am caught up in a wave of excitement when I land on swell advances in the ocean of ideas for alternative power. Here's a current notion, that may hold water, if you can fathom the concept of electricity coming from the deep blue sea. Engineers are making headway on designs that harness the power of waves. Are you thinking of wind-turbines under water, matey? Well, that's not quite the heading they're taking. With scientists at a company called BioPower Systems at the helm, the company is going full steam ahead, with plans to have a pilot program in place by 2008, and commercial units available by 2009, but rather than underwater windmills, the new generators to which they are anchoring their future mimic more seaworthy designs, such as kelp fronds and shark tails. These forward-thinking plans work with the currents in a way that is safe for ocean life. Is your imagination adrift? Here's the link to help you batten down the mental hatches. This should buoy your hopes that the possibilities for alternative energy aren't going to capsize.

If I went overboard with the nautical terms, I hope you'll give me some leeway. I must have temporarily lost my rudder. Please stem the tide of malice, and I'll stow the rest of of the "dinghy" talk , lest I be cast off and keel-hauled.

Hat tip: Futurismic (Aye-- that's Futurismic)

(Bonus points for anyone who catches all the intentional terms. Double bonus points for catching ones I didn't intend. My count is 32, but does not include terms like kelp fronds and shark tails, nor the second use of the word "current," since it was used in context.)

Nuclear Gumballs (not really--the title's just to get your attention)

Popular Mechanics is having another look at nuclear energy. A few days ago, I sent you to a debate about the efficacy and desirability of nuclear power, also at PM, but this article, by Alex Hutchinson, isn't debating anything, not what could happen, nor whether it should happen. Rather, he's looking at what is happening. Hutchinson examines the next generations of nuclear plants about to be constructed in the U.S., and the myriad ways they improve upon previous models. Some of the advances he describes are light years away from the form we've all come to associate with nuclear power: tall towers, water cooled, radioactive steam, melt-down fears--you know, the whole China Syndrome thing.

Some of the impetus for moving forward with nuclear alternatives here in the States come from technological advances, and some from government incentives to produce alternative energy, both as a replacement for fossil fuels, and as a supplement to meet growing energy demands. We all know that oil, and to a certain extent natural gas, are environmentally damaging, increasingly costly, and diplomatically and politically constraining. As part of the quest for a comprehensive solution, there have been some advances in national energy policy over the last few years that have led to more funding for nuclear options:

In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress approved up to $2.95 billion in incentives for new nuclear plants, and set aside another $1.25 billion for an experimental reactor to be built here in the Idaho desert. The reactor will be the centerpiece of a modern-day Manhattan Project, with scientists from around the world working together to revolutionize the production of nuclear power.

Hutchinson looks at the consequences of the Congressional action:

Thanks to the 2005 congressional incentives, a dozen utilities around the country have once again started the lengthy process of applying to build nuclear plants. If all goes smoothly, they could produce power by the middle of the next decade. These reactors would be Generation III and III+ designs--evolutionary improvements on today's Generation II reactors, which use water in some form as both a coolant and a moderator. But, according to the DOE, what is really needed are even safer, cheaper reactors that produce less waste and use fuel that's not easily adapted for weapons production. To develop this kind of reactor, 10 countries, including the United States, joined forces in 2000 to launch the Generation IV International Forum. A committee of 100-plus scientists from participating countries evaluated more than 100 designs; after two years, they picked the six best.

So, scientists around the globe are working on third and fourth generation nuclear designs. Hutchinson's article implies that we will be seeing the results of their work within ten years or so. Each of the better ides brings something valuable to the table. The concepts take various approaches to the nuclear question, with different advantages accompanying each design, but they all share some improvements over existing nuclear plants. The new designs are safer, quicker and easier to build, more cost effective, and more promising in terms of waste disposal than their predecessors. Nuclear energy is also a cleaner alternative than several of the other currently feasible options. As an extra bonus, according to Hutchinson, some of the new designs also have the benefit of producing hydrogen, refining shale oil, or desalinating water as side effects. The hydrogen has promise as an automobile fuel without the environmental drawbacks inherent to oil-based fuels. (In my own personal International Competition of Alternative Fuels, contestants get extra points for positive side effects.)

You should read the whole article for a more complete picture, and a closer look at the various design options. The pebble bed gumball machine is a personal favorite of mine. (Just read the PM piece. You'll see what I mean.) I keep wondering where this is all leading, whether in 20 years we'll be able to recognize the scientific, political, and international relations landscape. Is a potential revolutionary change in the energy frontier (and thus the international relations frontier, from my perspective), as close as this article at Popular Mechanics makes it sound? I certainly hope so.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Nuclear, Or Not? You Decide

Hey, there's an interesting bit of debate about nuclear energy at Popular Mechanics, between Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the co- founders of Greenpeace, and Anna Aurilio, the Legislative Director of the US Public Interest Research Group. I've known for a while, but was surprised at the time I learned, that the co-founder of Greenpeace has actually come around to being a nuclear energy advocate. He takes the pro-nuclear position in this discussion, while Ms. Aurilio takes the con. The debate points between them are interesting, covering cost, waste, safety, alternatives and the prevention of spent fuel finding its way into nuclear weapons. Dr. Moore even very briefly addresses water shortage issues which could be eased with nuclear technology.

I recognize that it was the intent of the editors of Popular Mechanics to present a fair opportunity for both sides to give their arguments, and it was not their aim to declare a winner in this debate. I'm sure they weren't setting out to support the concept of nuclear power. However, I think they could have, had they so chosen, using the same elements the article already contains. PM could have framed this into a pro-nuclear point-counterpoint, by placing Ms. Aurilio's portion of the debate at the beginning. Dr. Moore answers many of her objections in his portion of the article, especially as regards safety, which both of them address. Neither of them go into their arguments in great depth, but he holds his ground better than she does, in my "non-scientistic" opinion.

Dr. Moore makes the argument that nuclear energy should be developed in tandem to other alternative fuels. I agree. We ought to be exploiting every option that we can possibly implement feasibly and safely. I think some of Ms. Aurilio's points are weakened by putting nuclear energy in competition with other environmentally-friendly energy options, such as wind and solar. She seems to want to replace existing nuclear power, which, according to Dr. Moore produces 20 percent of our nation's electricity, with what she thinks are greener alternative choices, rather than replacing the greenhouse-gas-producing, terrorist- supporting fossil fuel options with solar, wind, and nuclear. Not to mention all the other energy options we can possibly explore that don't involve sending money to terrorist supporting states, and adding to potential greenhouse gas issues. The co-founder of Greenpeace thinks of nuclear energy as clean and safe, for Pete's sake. The more relevant comparison to be made at this point is nuclear versus oil and coal, since these are the predominant sources of power in the U.S. today. On the safety front, Ms. Aurilio is also less than persuasive. She limits her discussion of security and accident prevention to current safeguards, i.e. those safeguards which were put into nuclear facilities currently operating in America, but built over thirty years ago. Nuclear technology has come a long way since Three Mile Island. I'm with Dr. Moore.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Some 9/11 Encouragement

Kenneth Silber, at TCS Daily, has a common sense, and optimistic piece on why we (we being the good guys, the non-terrorists) are likely to win the War on Terror, or more precisely, why the terrorists are likely to lose. Today, of all days, it's a good thing to be reminded that, no matter how right it is to remember the lost on the 5th anniversary of 9/11, the story doesn't end there, nor does the future hold our imminent demise. Silber looks at the Cold War, and how many of communism's opponents feared they were losing the battle, even as they were fighting on the side of freedom. Obviously, they were wrong. Communism did not ultimately prevail. Silber, learning from this example, applies it to the trend he observes today, that of pessimism regarding the struggle against our terrorist foes. He sums up some reasons why the enemy is far from invincible, and points out some of their weaknesses, which, though often overlooked, make them unlikely to be victorious in their quest for world domination.

One of those weaknesses is one that a reader and I have discussed briefly in the comments of a previous post. I think it is a crucial part of winning this war over time:

Oil revenue is the terrorists' lifeline. The wealth that subsidizes Islamic terrorism and totalitarianism is overwhelmingly derived from the Persian Gulf region's petroleum exports; such exports are the mainstay of Iran's economy and of private "charities" that have funneled money to terrorist groups throughout the region. Efforts to diversify world energy supplies, driven by an array of economic, environmental and geopolitical factors, can be expected to erode the dominance of the region's oil over the next several decades. The development of alternative fuels and technologies, and of new petroleum sources such as the multibillion-barrel field recently discovered in the Gulf of Mexico, pose an enormous strategic threat to our enemies in the War on Terror.

This is such a critical observation. All of the environmental and political pressures caused by our use of fossil fuels as our main energy source are leading to dramatic developments, and ultimately will lead to the end of our dependence on oil. So much effort and money is going toward the search for viable alternatives, and this search is producing such promising results, that real changes are on the horizon, and the horizon grows ever closer. When those alternatives are readily available, and oil wanes as a necessary component to the national economies of secular democracies the world over, the Middle East will lose much of its revenue, as well as much of its influence on the democratic world and its policies. Take Iran as an example. What civilized nation, or group of nations, would let that demented and tyrannical government dictate terms, expand its influence, or develop nuclear weapons, if Iran has nothing the other nations need? If Iran didn't sit on one sixth of the world's known oil reserves, what power would that nation have now, and how much tolerance would there be for its funding of Hezbollah, from other governments that weren't equally demented? I think the answer to that question is pretty close to zilch. Mutiply that effect by the whole region, and the dynamics of Middle East policy change significantly.

Silber is absolutely right that the ongoing development of alternative sources of energy is one of the primary reasons that Islamic fascism will ultimately go the way of the Soviet Empire. There are other reasons, as well, so read his article for a bit of 9/11 encouragement.