May
16
A Gust Of Energizing Wind From Government
May 16, 2008 | Leave a Comment
Wind power got a boost midweek with the U.S. Department of Energy report that condensed to the bare headlines is suggesting that the U.S. is ready to get to 20% of electrical power generation from wind in 2030 or just 21 years out. It’s kind of a landmark to get such notice. A Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioner, Suedeen Kelly said, “We must look at meeting future electric demands in a cost-effective way…The 20% wind scenario would only cost 2 percent more than the cost of the baseline scenario without wind. At 50 cents per month for the average ratepayer, that is a small price to pay for the climate, water, natural gas, and energy security benefits it would buy–and it does not even count the stability provided to consumers by eliminating fuel price risk.”
The report is big, running 248 pdf pages. Its organized over six main areas, the scenario itself, turbine technology, manufacturing, materials and jobs, transmission and integration, siting and environment and lastly, markets.
Chapter 1 runs 20 pages covering the obligatory summary and overview. In the chapter they describe the “scenario” in the context of the geography of available wind, the transmission issues and integration, then the electrical mix and lastly the pace of installations.
Chapter 2 is about turbine technology and it runs 38 pages. Ranging from a review of today’s technology and “improvements on the horizon”, the report authors touch without allowing any reaches into the possible to firm up the 20-year scenario. The report does just allow a part of a page to research and development. The chapter goes on into risk both technical and financial, off shore technology, the technology in distributed wind power feeds and the needs that continued development would have for policy. While not a technologist read it is a noteworthy attempt to get a handle on the future with low risk assessments in plain view in the closing summary.
Chapter 3 gets into the manufacturing, the materials and the jobs issues. At only 12 pages it is the shortest, with the “Challenges” section on one page.
Chapter 4 gets into what may prove to be the cancer of energy and fuel development. For wind it’s more than turbine siting, its integration into the existing electrical grid and adding transmission lines. At 26 pages, this section seems to gloss over the realities of local folks getting in the way of installing transmission lines. The issue of getting power may well become an issue not of the power but the getting it to who needs it. The report lists a section as “Lessons Learned” but coping with the routing and legal matters sure to crop up is not addressed. That may be appropriate, as the thrust of the report may be more to point up the value of wind before the fight about getting transmission and integration underway.
Chapter 5 dedicates 23 pages to the siting and environmental effects. Stating with the issues today and the concerns the pitch goes into climate change impacts and carbon reductions and emissions. The report goes into wildlife and habitat. It addresses public perceptions and attitudes and very briefly reviews the local state and federal regulatory frameworks. The authors offer up some suggestions for these challenges and take a shot at looking into offshore wind turbine installations. The report even looks at the results in Europe in offshore wind projects.
Chapter 6 is 10 pages of market analysis. With a quick look at the evolution until today the report looks at the utility industry and the federal agencies, The Power Marketing Administration and the issues in compliance voluntary regulation and emissions markets. The main application such as large-scale wind installations, offshore, community, small and “Native American” wind projects are reviewed.
The last 100 or so pages is appendixes, figures and tables. Then there is a review of 5 pages of abbreviations used in the report and supporting documents.
What is missing is storage. I looked the report over and could not find a part dedicated to storing wind power by elevating water, compressing air, battery units or any other idea. That would be the glaring weakness.
On the other hand, the link is for a prepublication version so these matters may be dealt with or not. Alternatively, storage may be a separate field of study. The other missing segment is the rapid pace of technological change that will affect the industry. While I’m not for playing favorites in energy and fuel production, wind power and all the others should have tax incentives and accelerated treatment to depreciate the capital as the life spans look to be pretty short. The effect of such policy will add to the growth and significantly improve the efficiency as technology brings better turbines and supporting equipment to market.
If the main point of the report is to say wind power is now a mature and self supportable lower risk industry, I don’t agree. It is lower risk, but far from mature compared to others such as coal, natural gas and nuclear fission. If American’s wish to use a handy and easily used form of solar power, then wind is the prime answer, but the net rate to consumers cannot be overlooked. What must be done is for policy to assist in driving down costs as well as increasing supply.
As bureaucratic efforts go this is one of the better ones. Created by a contractor, it seems professionally written. You might want to save it; it’s a downloading pdf file and take some time to look it over. There are hundreds of thousands of stockholders if not millions today and all need to give the report a review if not a full reading.
Bookmark, Share or Email this Article
May
16
Growth Markers For Biofuels
May 16, 2008 | Leave a Comment
This week saw the International Energy Administration release a statement that was picked up by the press agencies and pretty much overlooked by the mainstream press. The statement itself tries to differentiate the types of biofuels and the impacts of fuel production and food production. The statement points out that the “can do now” such as ethanol from grains is at only 2% of cropland and the competition from more development of cellulose type plants will be forthcoming. The statement has a call on the developed economies to keep working at the job of introducing a wider base of feedstocks.
The growth of the market is also noted in the statement. 49% of the growth in world fuel supplies came from biofuels in 2007 and should get past 55% in 2008. The statement notes that a forthcoming study “Energy Technology Perspectives 2008” will show that biofuels may be necessary if carbon dioxide emissions are to be controlled. The noted report has a “most ambitious” scenario that projects biofuels may supply 26% of total transport fuel demand by 2050. It will be interesting to look at the report when it comes out.
Even more interesting is that a Bloomberg reporter, Ayesha Daya based in Dubai quotes the IEA monthly report saying that biofuels will grow by 425,000 barrels a day, a 57% increase over a year ago. “While it seems unlikely that biofuel targets will be reversed in the near future, it is sobering to realize the amount of oil that would be needed to replace them,” the IEA said. “Just offsetting the biodiesel and ethanol added to the U.S. and European markets since 2005 would require around 1 million barrels a day of additional crude oil supplies to be processed.” As it’s a local to OPEC readership the opening line is “Biofuels will account for 63% of oil supply growth from non-OPEC countries this year, taking global production of crop based fuel to more than 1.5 million barrels a day.” Lets see, in a market of 88 million barrels a day, 1.5 million is 1.7%. That’s a much better start than anyone would have guessed a couple of years ago.
The drops in the bucket are adding up. It might make one wonder who is pushing the backlash about biofuels.
Bookmark, Share or Email this Article
May
15
Food For Fascination
May 15, 2008 | Leave a Comment
This sort of thing drives physicists nuts. Today we’ll look at another electric motor that is engineered and constructed so that the electricity coming in added to what I suppose must be some of the atomic magnetic force of the permanent magnets, is alleged to put out more power than goes in.
These things have come before and mystified physicists and lay people alike. This time Herman Wilt of Vidalia Georgia has a working model to confound the researchers. The device reported to be at Georgia Tech University for testing. Meanwhile Mr. Wilt is working to configure the device so it self powers with excess output left over for work. The device is said to be the result of 20 years of investigation and study by Mr. Wilts, his wife’s introspection and other contributors.
With the patent granted (PN/7291944) the concept can be discussed in some detail. Electric motors are set of magnets, one set outside the inner set that turns. By timing the north and south poles of the magnets the attractions and repulsions can be made to get the motor to turn. The outer magnets are fixed to the motor’s shell and the inner magnets are fixed to the turning rotor.
Mr. Wilts motor is described as, “An electromagnetic engine has an inner rotor and an outer rotor having magnets of opposite polarity mounted thereon. Output is taken from the inner rotor, which is free to rotate in a single direction. The outer rotor is caused to oscillate, the force of magnetic repulsion between the magnetic fields of the inner and outer rotors driving rotation of the inner rotor. The outer rotor may be held stationary by solenoids and holding gears when the inner and outer magnetic fields are closely adjacent in order to maximize the force of repulsion. The timing of the oscillation and pausing of the outer rotor may be controlled by EPROM circuitry and a timing sensor mounted on the output shaft or gear.”
The difference in simple terms is that the outer magnets are moving too, and the motion is set out to enhance the magnetic attractions and repulsions. As they move through an oscillation cycle they add to the proximity and total time an attraction/repulsing event takes place. On the other hand, I could be completely wrong about what I read and see in the videos.
Mr. Wilts explains the basic motor.
A little more explanation and comparison of the first and third models.
These are obviously complex and precise machines that if the assertions prove to be true would bring about quite a change in the use of electricity. The videos are fairly good as YouTube vids go and the patent is certainly for real.
This is another marvel of ingenuity that fascinates and stimulates the mind. It also provides a puzzle to solve or a mystery to unravel. It will be interesting to see the test results should Georgia Tech’s test results make news.
I wish Mr. Wilt and his group a big success.
Bookmark, Share or Email this Article
May
14
Reasons to Worry About the Price of Oil
May 14, 2008 | Leave a Comment
Some popular pages here are those about the why the price of oil is so high. I haven’t updated with a new post as the fundamentals haven’t changed other than the U.S. Federal Reserve has increasingly moved to protect the major banks and their management and stockholders instead of the American people by crushing the purchasing power of the dollar. It’s a good thing that understanding what the Federal Reserve does is hard to explain and what the effects are perhaps even more so. But killing the purchasing power of the dollar is the cause of the oil speculation and the root cause of the recession that isn’t and the inflation everyone experiences but the government denies. The power of the financial industry’s leaders to get away with taking wealth from the masses is astonishing.
What has happened is that the Fed has made capital available to banks for them to stay solvent by inventing money. That money which could be used to service customers is being used to invest in financial instruments that have “value”, such as commodities like oil and gold, securities and other things. Meanwhile all this new money makes dollars worth less as like everything in abundance, too much makes all of it worth less.
That makes the working consumer less well off, triggers the race to invest cheap dollars into “dear” commodities like oil and gold thought to “preserve value” of the dollars as those finance people are thinking to invest low and sell out high with more dollars in the end than they went in with.
But.
Markets are not hard fast reliable predictable things. There are lots of descriptive words, but steady and safe aren’t on the list.
So lets scare some finance people – the facts are available for all to see.
Commodity investors both in the banks and as customers are playing with fire in hoping that using the gold to oil ratio will support their bets. The gold to oil ratio over time has been a guide that shows the average price of a barrel of oil is about 8 to 10 barrels for an ounce of gold. Gold at about $880 today and oil about $120 the ratio says gold is underpriced at 7.3 barrels to the ounce. A sort of an “Oh, gold is way too cheap and must go up!” and get to $1,200+ per ounce.
Here’s that “But” again. Suppose you turn the ratio around and look again. It’s sort of an “how many ounces of gold can you buy with a barrel of oil?” It’s a gut check time. Instead of gold being cheap, oil is way too expensive, by about 50%. Think of it as $88 per barrel as the reality check.
The dollar, with a (Federal Reserve Bank’s) heavy hand betraying the American people, is worth less and less with each passing day and the money is leaving for foreign oil exporters. The exporters know full well that lots and lots of cheap dollars now will someday, when the mass of Americans catch on, work their way through a recession, and put an election behind them, become more valuable again. They can afford to wait.
Other than a few pounds of gold onboard space vehicles all the gold ever found could be put on the market. For centuries, humanity has used gold as a standard of value. Its “value” expressed in currencies usually leads other prices and if not, they close very quickly.
Oil once used is gone. But there have always been alternatives and more are coming. The dance between oil and gold will come to an end, but before it does the alternatives have to gain more of a share of the market and they are just beginning with much more to come.
So gold will lead oil now as it has in the past. Its off about 15% so far from its last high. This leads one to expect once again repeated historical trends will follow the facts. Oil is over priced.
Even in the face of the Fed flooding banks with new cash, a recession looming and the oil supply tight, gold can’t hit its 2005 high. Those investors know something lenders to oil speculators don’t. Oil can be unused, replaced, and avoided.
Another take on the damage done to the market itself.
So just be sure, that if you’re in oil futures that you can afford to lose maybe half or more of your capital.
Bookmark, Share or Email this Article
May
13
So, How Much Electricity to End Gasoline?
May 13, 2008 | 1 Comment
One blogger I admire is Robert Rapier who writes the R-Squared Blog who posted on Monday about the solar base of electricity needed to displace the equivalent of today’s gasoline use. It is an interesting concept that is rife with problems of equivalency.
The U.S. is reported to be going through 389 million gallons of gasoline per day. While useful for entertainment and to run calculations comparing gasoline use to solar sourced electricity isn’t realistic. But that gasoline is energizing seat miles. I admit that Mr. Rapier is trying hard to make a sensible case using verifiable numbers for the base assumptions. All well and good, it plays right into the audience that tracks Mr. Rapier’s commentary, which seems headed into the gloomy and doomed end of civilization.
So lets speculate, and up front, there isn’t any reason to be going to great lengths to use verifiable numbers for the assumptions. Any sensible set, if based in the personal and commercial reality of the day will do.
Assume that those 389 million gallons of gasoline are moving something 20 miles each for 7.78 billion miles. This assumption offers the reality that no one will be changing their lifestyle. The hole in the number is just what is the actual traveled miles per day of the U.S. gasoline powered fleet actually is. Of course, everyone will be above or below this number and the investment in the vehicle will vary hugely, too. So, lets just divide the gallon at say $3.50 by 20 for $0.175 per mile or $52.50 per 300 mile week. But the important number is the assumed and full of holes 7.78 billion daily miles.
One set of numbers for the electrical cost is the Tesla site on the well to wheel page. Tesla offers that the mileage for the Tesla Roadster is 110 Wh/km or 180 Wh/mile or 54,000 watthours in the 300-mile week. That would be 54-kilowatt hours and if the price is say $0.10 the weekly cost is $5.40.
But the Tesla might be highly efficient so let’s use instead of the 180 Wh/mile, let’s say about two fold or 360 Wh/mile, multiplied by the 7.78 billion miles. At 2.77 miles per kilowatt we get 2.81 billion kilowatt hours per day. Mr. Rapier is at 2.7 billion kilowatt hours per day. OK, you caught me, I doubled the Tesla numbers, but the point is that Mr. Rapier is about right, probably in the high side, he just went wildly astray trying to get to the point.
Mr. Rapier is also pretty much on the spot figuring the power generation needed and his conclusion of needing 444 gigawatts of generating capacity is well past what would be conceivably required to fully displace the gasoline fueled fleet. When you consider the assumptions here that double the Tesla Wh/mile the generation numbers are easily within the overnight charging capacity of the U.S. right now.
For us personally the difference between paying as low as $3 to maybe $10 per week to charge up against more than $50 per week in gasoline might free up about $150 per month for new investment. While many worry about the investment being lost from converting to electric drives or other alternatives, keep in mind the money invested in personal vehicles is going to be lost in any case, it’s really a matter of how fast. I spoke with a salesman who is driving a ¾ ton pickup and has been trying to trade it in for something much more fuel efficient only to find the trade in value is humiliating IF they will offer to trade at all.
Mr. Rapier’s conclusions are on point, particularly the part about not having a good way to store electrical potential. While he mentions an odd idea such as splitting water to get hydrogen, there is a better likelihood you could sell me a super capacitor and the necessary kit to have one at home that charges during the day and offloads to the car any time its needed or maybe feeds the grid when excess is available. Even a cheap lead acid battery set would be preferable to investing in the solar panels needed to split water and burn the hydrogen or feed a fuel cell that converts back to electricity.
The Wall Street Journal’s Environmental Capital blog picked up Mr. Rapier’s post. That’s a good thing. Even though most will miss the important reasons to be looking in the direction of electric drive vehicles as Mr. Rapier did, we’re lucky he and others who watch him get to see a number that while at the high range and loaded to show the amount of solar installation needed to get there does show the viability.
Regular readers will know that the stop mark is the storage issue both in vehicle and at small solar installations. One might think that the smart money, issue maker and policy maker might catch on someday. In any case, the weekly power or fuel cost numbers show those batteries and capacitors are two of the gold mines of the coming new energy and fuel era.
Bookmark, Share or Email this Article
May
12
How to Play Benevolent Dictator
May 12, 2008 | 2 Comments
Family is an interesting and informative exercise in people watching. In conversation the informed, ill informed, intelligent, ignorant, and indifferent all can be seen in as a microcosm of the community as a whole. Conversation for holidays that lack a lot of traditions rituals and activities lead to discussions in my family and the talk can get heated absent some ground rules.
That offers the opportunity for a game such as “Benevolent Dictator” or “Dictator for a Day,” as many of the issues of the day dominate conversation even as the taboo of talking religion and politics can be difficult and lead to trouble. That made the idea of setting out a “game” and some protocols and rules that make it possible for everyone interested to get equal hearing.
As a group, all one needs for equipment is a few pens or pencils and a pad of post it notes or paper pads. The question for everyone is choosing two or three prime topics that each player is to solve when they are the benevolent dictator for a day. When the top topics are known from the list offered by everyone, each player can offer their solution for one or more topic.
The pen and paper are the just the means to stop the conversational over runs and get the list laid out so everyone can choose their topic. It stops talking long enough for thinking and for someone to tally up the leading issues.
The next step is for everyone in turn, in a sentence or so, to lay out their “decree” for each of the topics. As its family, there aren’t any hard rules but you can modify these suggestions as you see fit. We time the discussion after each decree, not the decree offer itself. It won’t take long for one topic and a decree to really stir things up. So a time limit is what works for us.
After the two or three rounds of decrees, it comes to a vote to choose a decree most likely to succeed. More pen and paper, but the vote isn’t about a family member, its about an idea that in our case can often be offered by more than one person.
That’s just a simple way to have a little fun with the issues of the day. It involves the indifferent and informs the ill informed and ignorant. Handled with respect, and inside a protocol many otherwise difficult matters get aired and each person is heard by everyone for a few moments. It makes for a happy group eager for more next time.
Yup, oil and gasoline prices made the list. The decree most likely to succeed was to require license and registration fees of gas guzzlers to be much more expensive at an increasing rate over ten years when the license and registration fees would be equal to half the new price of the vehicle. As you can well imagine the vocal minority was pushing for the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank to get back to the business of maintaining the purchasing power of the dollar. Both are top flight ideas that are eminently sensible.
Dispensing with the world’s evil people turned up a couple of shocking ideas and the hopeless longing for human camaraderie. A winner just didn’t get picked.
The third topic was getting a public grasp back on medical costs. Note that is “a public grasp on medical costs” not a government grasp or an insurance company’s grasp on medical costs. The frustration in the family may well be a microcosm of the whole community. Many will look for someone else to pay the bill, but in my family, it’s well understood whoever sends the money, it will still be our money. Controlling costs is now the main “term of the issue.” The medical cost issue has been tabled to be picked up at the next family get together. It was suggested that everyone see a program on PBS made by a reporter who visited other countries to see how they have handled the health care issue and when I get the link, I will put up a short post. If you already know, please pass it along.
After a few hours family members departed happy and satisfied, pleased and feeling loved.
Those of us who look at energy and fuel as a main topic might come away from such a discussion appalled at the poor information in circulation, and a concern about the intent of the major media. It was offered that an article in a major newspaper is suggesting that Iowa is the leading CO2 emitter in the U.S. When in fact the state has a low percentage of coal electrical generation, nuclear stations of good repute and may well be the nation’s largest CO2 sequestration state with a rapidly increasing share of wind generation coming on line. But, some goof wrote the article and somehow a gross misrepresentation of the facts got into print. There isn’t time to chase them all down and expose them.
A little protocol, some simple rules and any group can explore the knowledge of its members and everyone comes away better informed.
With three grandmothers, four mothers and lots of kids around it was a fine day. For all my readers who are mothers I wish you a Mother’s Day that feels goods all of the coming year. I hope today’s little suggestion might give you a way to have those more intense discussions in a more enjoyable and beneficial way.
Bookmark, Share or Email this Article
May
9
Is Hydrogen On Demand the Coming Thing?
May 9, 2008 | Leave a Comment
Yesterday we looked at a method of releasing hydrogen from methanol. Today we’ll look at releasing hydrogen from formic acid.
Hydrogen in a pure state is terribly problematic. It’s a gas requiring high pressures to compress to small volumes, it has to be super cooled to get to a liquid state, and being an atom or two atom molecule, it is the smallest bit of matter to try to contain. It is also quite reactive and can be exceedingly dangerous. The devil is in the containment and storage.
That makes “storage” in a molecule that can be easily, quickly and cheaply used to hold hydrogen in a stable state very interesting if the hydrogen can be freed up again easily quickly and cheaply, too.
Formic acid is a common compound in chemistry, used for preservatives and as an antibacterial agent. In low concentrations, it’s relatively harmless, and has been used in such products as perfumes and flavorings. In strong concentrations it can burn, especially the eyes and the vapors can damage air passages. As acids go its not real bad stuff, but it is an acid after all. Not horrible stuff and comparatively safe and environmentally benign when diluted down with water. Therefore, it could be a useful medium for storing hydrogen as a fuel source.
This brings us to the innovators at Leibniz-Institute for Catalysis in Rostok, Germany. Department head Professor Matthias Beller and team members Bjor Loges, Albert Boddien, and Henrik Junge have developed a process that extracts hydrogen from the formic acid in a controlled fashion at low temperatures and without a reforming process. The hydrogen product after a carbon filtering is suitable for introduction into a fuel cell.
The process they’ve developed neatly extracts the hydrogen from the HCO2H leaving just the CO2. Using an amine, suggesting N,N-dimethylhexylamine with a catalyst also suggesting a commercially available ruthenium phosphine RUCl2(PPH3)2 the reaction takes place at room temperature.
The production side can also be a catalyst chemical reaction making formic acid from biomass where CO2 and derived hydrogen are available. That would make the cycle carbon neutral in principle.
Professor Beller is forthright in the quote “For the use of fuel cells in portable electrical devices - this nascent formic acid technology opens up new possibilities in the short term.”
The key in the quote is “nascent” and the honesty of Professor Beller. It’s way early in this development for projecting usefulness. However, the hard reality is that with the Basque University release we looked at yesterday and this today, the difficulties of hydrogen as a fuel source or energy storage medium are being solved with elegant use of nature and insightful innovation of humanity.
One has to wonder what other compounds might be useful and what other reaction tools may come into useful knowledge. The coming months and years will see the costs and the practical applications expand building a sense of what direction development from the research might go and the products we will use in doing our work.
Coming up with large amounts of methanol and/or formic acid isn’t real hard. There is real promise in these two research paths. May the lowest cost to the consumer project win and win soon.
Bookmark, Share or Email this Article
May
8
Is Methanol the Up and Coming Alcohol For Fuel?
May 8, 2008 | 1 Comment
Methanol is the smallest of the alcohols, with one carbon atom, four hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom, which is parked between the carbon and one of the hydrogen atoms. The oxygen atom is the only difference between methanol and methane the main part of natural gas. Methanol also known as wood alcohol, is a comparatively easy molecule to make from biomatter. Like methane, it burns cleanly, as the hydrogen to carbon ratio is at 4:1 and it has that oxygen atom that conveniently helps keep methanol liquid and increases its resistance to ignition. Good stuff, if not very high energy in density, as shown by its long history as a racing fuel.
The breakthrough might be using methanol in a fuel cell rather than in an internal combustion engine. Like other fuels methanol isn’t going to overcome the inherent disadvantage of the IC engine efficiency, but applied to a fuel cell the efficiency may get high enough that the power we are accustomed to and the ranges we expect may still be available.
A fuel cell using methanol would handle a chemical reaction called electro-oxidation in which a catalyst would be needed to accelerate the process up to output rates that make sense. The idea is to generate electrical output instead of ignition into flames. Compared to straight hydrogen, methanol offers being a liquid, much higher energy density, safer to handle, much lower pressures in storage and in an accident a fire rather than a concussive explosion. In a fuel cell system, the high heat mechanical apparatus wouldn’t likely be present for an ignition source.
The problems that have held up methanol as a fuel cell feedstock is the need for a great deal of rare platinum for the catalyst and the output of carbon monoxide rather than carbon dioxide. With all the complaining about CO2 it is still a better and life sustaining molecule over the poisonous and near valueless CO. These issues have kept methanol deep into research.
The world has its new hero. Jose E. Barranco is a newly minted PhD whose thesis “Development of New Metallic Materials of an Amorphous Nature for Use in Direct Methanol Fuel Cells” was awarded “Excellent Cum Laude” unanimously at Universidad del Pais Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (aka University of the Basque Country).
Dr. Barranco’s thesis is based on his work in making alloys including nickel, niobium, antimony, ruthenium and others with platinum as low as 1% that have the capability to act as a methanol fuel cell and convert the carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide. The work led to efforts to increase efficiency. The amorphous structure is a result of efficiency effort. Dr. Barranco found that an amorphous structure for the platinum alloy increased its conductivity and it experienced less corrosion. The operational capacity increased 80 to 100 times higher than platinum in its crystalline structure.
Dr. Barranco went even further in choosing to change the form of the alloy to very fine power that he essentially “spray painted” onto the fuel cell’s membrane. This raised the operating capacity of the catalyst to “9-13 times” which forms a fuel cell better than 50% more efficient than a crystalline platinum fuel cell.
That’s the good news. Here is what may prove to be bad news. Dr. Barranco’s work is under the jurisdiction of the Alcohols Oxidation Fuel Cell Research department at the Industrial Chemistry and Electrochemical Engineering Laboratory of the Polytechnic University in Donostia-San Sabastian. The research there is lead by Dr. Angel Rodriguez Pierna whose aim seems to be to “achieve a methanol fuel cell solely and totally devised and developed by the laboratory.”
After all fact checking I find these highly plausible innovations under the purview of one administrative fellow. Methanol is a good prospect for an alternative biomass derived fuel that plays well with planetary biosphere carbon recycling and is a one carbon atom molecule, which brings four hydrogen atoms to the reaction. This is the sort of thing that makes the high energy, green revolution folks glow. In fuel cell use it would electrify drive trains and may drive down the costs of replacing the personal car fleet while displacing precious petroleum oil for burning to energize cars. It could be a very big deal indeed.
Methanol is easy to make, one has to be careful though, even when making ethanol one can lose control and get methanol by mistake.
But, its under the control of just one man.
That’s enough to make one really uneasy about Dr. Barranco’s future. I wish these men well, I just hope the innovation gets out for replication and a much wider field of research soon. It looks like a “home run,” I just hope the stadium has an audience that matters and stays around long enough to matter.
Bookmark, Share or Email this Article
May
7
This Might Work - $100 Million Dollar Prize
May 7, 2008 | 1 Comment
The X Prize Foundation made news last week with a $100 million dollars of prize money for a “suite” of categories in cost effective energy and minimal environmental impact. Two prizes are decided, the ultra efficient passenger vehicle and the biofuel prize we have already heard about.
Here is the meat about the rest of the money. The Foundation is focusing on alternative power generation, energy efficiency, buildings and housing, energy storage and “carbon.” It’s likely the funders have considerable influence on how these targets are selected. The principles the foundation offers where they use the word “mandate” include: a positive influence on global warming, progress toward clean, green and renewable energy, equity of opportunity and fair division of resources, and the global impact. One might detect some impractical or self-satisfying limitations in these “mandates.”
Getting more dreamy is the principle of pursuing prize concepts that promote a world “where energy is no longer a source of conflict and pollution, such energy will someday be: affordable and abundant, clean and renewable and used efficiently and equitably.” These all sound great. But applying them to a specific prize may well cancel out much in the way of improvement. Incremental gains accumulated over time and as the energy economy matures, could well be very different than any expectations we have today.
Finally, just to forewarn aspirants to winning a prize of millions of dollars, “We will actively pursue concepts that restore environmental balance, such that: carbon emissions are declining, forests and habitat are secure, industry and commerce are accomplished sustainably, and healthy air, water and living conditions are available to all.”
Some areas for prizes are thought to be in carbon capture, solar, water, sustainable housing and other areas of interest. With $100 million in the pot, I would have thought they would have a better handle on where the money will be awarded.
The prize idea is a great motivator and source of inspiration for those looking at innovation as a career. Looking over the Foundation’s pdf leaves a reader with a vague sense of wandering on the part of the Foundation. Maybe from a public relations point of view, the announcement makes some sense, but there isn’t anything for inventors, researchers, designers and developers to grip.
The pdf offer a nice chart. Its not real useful, the connections between the main areas of production, delivery, use and integration are not there.
While many news sources played the announcement up in a big way last week, there isn’t much there, yet. The prospects for the creative side need a lot more hard data, as what is available now is, well, food for hype and “feel good” writing. There isn’t anything for consumers either, a causal reading leaves one bereft of connecting the prizes to real life.
On the other hand, the announced prizes have firmed up well. The auto prize has something like more than 60 entries already. The foundation can get its act together. Its just a little puzzling to see things like what happened last week.
The news isn’t the stories we saw last week. The news is they have the money committed to $100 Million Dollars to be spread over a yet to be determined list of prizes. That’s great news.
Its clear is the foundation, like so very many others, is still at somewhat of a loss for direction. This is true for everyone. But, some things are really clear in the physics, chemistry and biology of the universe and our lives in it.
The opportunities are staggering, and the ways to get to the Foundations goal’s and the goals of each of us are just beginning to be developed. Much will change, most unseen, some visual joys, some hard realist choices are coming.
There is unlimited energy to be had, its getting it in useful form and making efficient and effective use of it that are the problems. Lets hope the X Prize Foundations ratchets up the sophistication level s few notches and quickly. They offer a lot, and making their notoriety and economic power more effective would be a top goal right now.
Think it through, one can offer one’s own prize suggestions, the link (Click on “Propose an X Prize”)on the Foundation’s page is in the lower left column. You might have a better idea what the prizes should be.
Bookmark, Share or Email this Article
May
6
Nuclear Power Growth Without New Plants?
May 6, 2008 | Leave a Comment
Brian Wang of NextBigFuture posted about improvements to atomic fission processes with four new concepts that are making their way forward. With atomic fission provided the U.S. with about 20% of the electrical power generation even minor improvements are significant. Any new fission plant is faced with difficult, time consuming and expensive barriers to get over before a watt sees its way to a consumer, with each watt priced to consumers for the excess trouble.
That makes improvements to an existing plant highly interesting. Brian offers this graphic that shows the shares of power generation with the caption in part “Boosting nuclear power by 50% would be like doubling hydroelectric and all renewable power.” We’re big supporters of renewable here, but the amounts of power needed to avoid summer brownouts and load shedding without even adding the advantages to driving down the cost of power require much larger proportions than currently in planning.
The MIT fuel rod, which simply put, isn’t a rod any more, but has become a tube with the inner hole also moving coolant, is another design that achieves much better efficiency. This new design cuts the operating temperature to less than half, making the distance to meltdown 2140 degrees C, a near doubling of the temperature spread, which forms a much saver operating design. While more complex in manufacturing, Westinghouse has already runs trials at 95% yields, making it possible to calculate the costs for the new fuel design. Use scenarios for refueling include both solid and the new annular designs in existing reactors. Tests are planned to bring this idea to commercial use. There may be up to 50% more power available from reactors using this innovation.
The idea to “spike the coolant” has gained traction too. In this concept, the water has added particles in nano sizes that add thermal carrying and thermal exchange rates. The coolant water takes heat away from the hot fuel and then releases it outside where the heat can be used. Water is the limiter in thermal exchanges holding efficiencies to about 33%. Increase the limit and you can move more heat, perhaps double the amount of efficiency. But the problem to be worked out is the “spiked” additives bunch up and settle out. Work is underway, as this idea offers a huge opportunity if the problems can be worked out.
Another take on the shape of fuels coming from MIT is a cross shaped pellet. With 40% more surface area, more heat can be taken away thus more efficiently operated. The current art, based on a Russian idea, is a 4-lobe design twisted to enhance turbulence. The gains in early tests show a 30% power density uprate with a 30% lower pressure drop.
A new type of outer surface for fuel rods is being considered using Silicon Carbide over the current zirconium alloy. The motivator is the higher strength, resistance to radiation damage, and other internal operating advantages.
The important words in this are “efficiency” and “uprates.” Efficiency offers improved economics and performance. Uprates can mean an existing plant might be adding generators, which from a rate paying consumers point of view is a very good thing, no new plant site, fighting about it, and waiting years for construction and bringing it on line.
Let’s just go look at Brian Wang’s post. He has complete graphics and links for further investigation. We get the importance that uprates can offer. Now if we could get the politicians to wake up to the problems and push a little on these matters something good might get done without crushing the consumer over rates.
Bookmark, Share or Email this Article
