ALTERNATIVE
ENERGY SOURCES : we could always use less energy, but
that doesn't seem very likely. Transport accounts for about 33% of energy
consumption in UK or USA (UK transport uses only a tenth as much energy
as the United States).
hybrid solar lighting (HSL)
would reduce this energy usage with fixtures that supplement or completely
replace electric light with sunlight, at times when it’s available. Scientists
are developing a technology to save energy by transmitting sunlight into
buildings through tubes. Indoor electric lighting is the largest consumer
of electricity in commercial buildings. In the system, a rooftop collector
concentrates and sends sunlight through optical fibers, tubes made of special,
high-purity material that transmit light by reflecting it down their inner
walls. The fibers would transmit sunlight to special fixtures inside the
building, which also contain high-efficiency fluorescent lighting. When
the transmitted sunlight completely illuminates each room, the electric
lights stay off. When less natural light is available during cloudy days
and at night, a sensor activates controls that increase electric lighting
adequately to supplement natural lighting and maintain desired illumination
levels, according to the magazine. The Oak Ridge labortory plans to help
install hybrid solar lighting at the headquarters of the Sacramento Municipal
Utility District in Sacramento, Calif., under a contract by the California
Energy Commission. The laboratory also plans to install an HSL system in
a Wal-Mart store in Kauai, Hawaii, to evaluate energy savings and sales
trends associated with HSL daylighting.
fossil fuels such as oil and natural
gas are organic materials made up of carbon and hydrogen. The consensus
view is that all commercially viable petroleum and natural gas is made
by biological processes - although methane can also be made in small amounts
within volcanoes. In fact, the recent detection of methane in Mars's atmosphere
has been interpreted as evidence either of ongoing volcanic activity or
of life. Methane can be made in the lab from non-biological material by
squeezing together water, iron (II) oxide and calcite between 2 flattened
diamond tips at 50,000-110,000 times the pressure at sea level, and heating
the mixture to 1,500 °C. : it is stable at the intense temperatures
and pressures found in Earth's mantle, 100-300 km beneath the surface.
Because the mantle makes up 80% of the planet's volume, much more carbon
in the Earth could be in the form of hydrocarbons than we previously imagined.
The methane result has already increased speculation that oil and natural
gas reserves may exist in the mantle, ready to be tapped into, but you
probably won't be able to drill for it, because it's far too deep. Oil
wells usually only drill down to between 5 and 8 km below Earth's surface,
into relatively low-pressure regions. The best way to obtain methane generated
in the mantle would be to look for pockets in the crust where rising gas
has become trapped. But the amount of gas is unlikely to be significant
compared with the oil and gas reserves we already know about : by the time
the gas has reached the upper crust, most of it will have dispersed. The
mechanism for methane production might also be at work on other planets
: a hydrocarbon-rich body such as Saturn's moon Titan could produce hydrocarbons
throughout its interior (even near its centre, the pressure is within experimental
range). Methane could also be present in Mars's mantl, : this might explain
recent observations of methane in Mars's atmosphere, without any need for
martian creatures. But the result could still be good news for those hoping
to find life on the red planet as methane could be used as a fuel source
by life forms
hydrogen : fuel cells have long been lauded
as the 'green dream' of energy. The cells combine oxygen and hydrogen in
a kind of battery, producing electricity. The only waste product is water.
But although oxygen can be extracted free from the air, hydrogen is harder
to come by
the main method of large-scale production involves reacting hydrocarbons
with steam at high temperatures and pressures. Most hydrogen is currently
made from methane, in a process that releases CO2 into the atmosphere.
Splitting water molecules with huge amounts of electricity generates hydrogen
- but the electricity is likely to have been generated from fossil fuels.
Although this may shift urban pollution to out-of-town electricity plants,
it makes little difference to greenhouse-gas output, or to free countries
from relying on oil and coal for their energy needs. The only technology
that can currently make large amounts of hydrogen without using fossil
fuels relies on :
renewable power sources : converting every vehicle in the USA to hydrogen
power would demand so much electricity that the country would need enough
wind turbines to cover half of California or 1,000 extra nuclear power
stations. In the UK the hydrogen switch would require 100,000 wind turbines,
enough to occupy an area greater than Walesref.
nuclear energy : public opposition to nuclear energy deters many politicians
another potential source of hydrogen is alcohols such as ethanol.
The USA produces about 2.8 billion gallons of industrial alcohol a year
by fermenting plant matter such as corn. This ethanol is added to petrol
to make it burn more cleanly. Researchers have found several ways to pull
hydrogen from ethanol, but this has generally proven difficult and costly.
Now Lanny Schmidt and colleagues at the University of Minnesota have made
the process cheaper and easier - perhaps enough so to make it an economically
viable source of hydrogenref.
The team says that when their process is optimized it should be able to
produce electricity at around 4 cents per kW-hour, rivalling the costs
of conventional electricity. The reactor pushes a mixture of watery ethanol
and air over a rhodium-based catalyst heated to about 700°C.
It takes only 5 seconds to start up, and produces a steady stream of hydrogen
and CO2 with very few other waste products. The process therefore
still produces greenhouse gas, but because it is more efficient than burning
fuel it should belch out less pollution for the energy it produces, say
the researchers. Ethanol in car engines is burned with 20% efficiency,
but if you used ethanol to make hydrogen for a fuel cell, you would get
60% efficiency. Ethanol can usually only be burnt if it is completely free
of water - and getting the water out is an energy-intensive process. Schmidt's
reactor works with wet ethanol. The hydrogen that comes from the reactor
is only about 50% pure, which makes it unsuitable for some fuel cells that
easily become clogged by impurities. But the mix can be tolerated by one
type of cell called a solid oxide fuel cell. Such cells are typically better
for stationary applications, such as powering a house that's far from power
lines, as they tend to run best at very high temperatures. For cars, most
research has focused on another type of fuel cell - a proton exchange membrane
(PEM) - which generally requires a cleaner source of hydrogen. For portable
devices there may be even better options : the best solution for 'green'
transportation is fuel cells that burn methanol, rather than hydrogen.
Methanol, or wood alcohol, can be produced from plant cellulose on a much
larger scale than ethanol, and the process makes more efficient use of
the whole plant
scientists have found a way to harness the Sun's energy to extract zinc
metal, which can then be used to produce hydrogen simply by pouring water
over it. With improvements, the process may prove a cleaner, more efficient
way of producing hydrogen for fuel-cell-powered vehicles, which would emit
nothing more polluting than water. Current methods of producing hydrogen
gas rely either on the fossil fuels they purport to replace, or water-splitting
technology that has so far been too inefficient to deliver cheap hydrogen.
It has long been known that metals such as zinc can release hydrogen
from water. But purifying the metal is the hard part. The traditional
method of obtaining zinc involves many chemical steps, baths of acid and
masses of electricity. Researchers at the solar-powered plant of the Solar
Research Unit at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel,
have found a better way to deliver the metal. They use 64 7-m-wide mirrors
to focus a beam of sunlight onto a tower containing the mineral zinc oxide
and wood charcoal. The beam delivers 300 kW of power, heating the chemical
reactor up to 1,200 °C and delivering up to 50 kg of powdered zinc
per hour. We can imagine solar plants around the Mediterranean producing
zinc. As a bonus, the zinc should also be useful for making batteries.
Epstein will present results from the SOLZINC
project, which includes researchers from Switzerland, Sweden and France,
on 8 Aug 2005 at the International
Solar Energy Society conference in Orlando, Florida. The process isn't
yet entirely clean. The zinc-forming reaction also releases CO from the
charcoal, which eventually converts to the greenhouse
gas
CO2 in the atmosphere. In a full-scale industrial process, the
CO could be harnessed to help produce even more hydrogen from water. But
this too would produce CO2. For now the process produces as
much CO2 as extracting the same amount of hydrogen from natural
gas, but the carbon in this reaction is a renewable resource rather than
a fossil fuel. Eventually, the team hopes to replace charcoal with agricultural
waste. And, if they can get the solar mirrors to heat things up to 1,800
°C, they would be able to extract zinc without any carbon. The work
could be useful in sunny climes, but transporting either zinc or hydrogen
over long distances is a major hurdle. The team is trying to produce other,
lighter metals, such as magnesium, in the same way, although these require
hotter temperatures to extract. If a clean way can be found to make
these low-density metals, they could be used to produce hydrogen right
in the tank of a car. That would remove the need to transport the gas altogether.
if we could trap the CO2 produced by fossil fuels underground,
we could convert them to hydrogen. It's not tried and tested, but it's
a possibility and it could become a reality by the time we have enough
hydrogen-powered cars to make it necessary
hydrogen-powered vehicles will save thousands of lives a year in the USA
alone. If all the nation's vehicles were powered by hydrogen fuel cells
rather than fossil fuels, the drop in pollutants that cause asthma, respiratory
problems and other potentially life-threatening conditions could reduce
deaths by over 6,000 a year. The work challenges a common objection to
working towards a 'hydrogen economy', in which hydrogen replaces oil as
the main fuel source. Many people argue that because hydrogen will probably
be generated by burning fossil fuels, a hydrogen system is no better for
our planet than oil. Both produce the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, although
at different points in the cycle of fuel production and use. However, the
problem with the internal combustion engine is not just its carbon dioxide
emissions. It also produces poisonous carbon monoxide, smog-inducing nitrogen
oxides, and ozone, an eye and respiratory irritant. Worst of all, it creates
microscopic soot particles that cause a host of health risks and affect
climate. Moreover, fossil-fuel vehicles tend to concentrate these pollutants
in areas of high population density. Focusing on the health issues of hydrogen
vehicles might convey their benefits to policy-makers in a better way than
more general talk about emissions and pollution. The effects of replacing
all fossil-fuel vehicles in the USA with ones powered by hydrogen fuel
cells, which burn hydrogen in air to produce electricity and water, were
considered. Such vehicles exist already, although not in large numbers.
The team then considered different ways in which the USA might obtain this
hydrogen, including extraction from natural gas or coal, or electrolysis
of water (which requires electricity, perhaps generated from fossil fuels).
They ran computer simulations to determine the state of the atmosphere
for each scenario. They also calculated what it would be like if all vehicles
were converted to fossil-fuel/electric hybrids, of which there are various
models on the market. Regardless of the hydrogen or electricity source,
air quality improved in all cases. There was less carbon monoxide, ozone,
nitrogen oxides and the eye irritant peroxyacetyl nitrate, as well as fewer
sooty carbon particles. This would bring substantial health benefits. The
incidence of minor ailments such as headaches, sore throats and eye irritation
drops by tens of millions a year in all the scenarios. The number of mortalities
caused by air-quality problems falls by up to 6,400 a year with hydrogen
cars. Hybrids would save fewer lives than that, but would be better for
health than today's fossil-fuel burning cars. Unsurprisingly, the best-case
scenario is that in which hydrogen is produced from water using electricity
generated by wind turbines. The problem, however, is determining whether
these scenarios are feasible. Producing hydrogen from water through wind
power is expensive. And there are problems with storing, transporting and
distributing hydrogen fuels. Still, focusing on the health effects will
help to make the case for hydrogen and renewable energyref
A car with a single crew member is allowed up to eight square metres of
solar panels plastered over its sleek body : the power gained from an extra
four square metres of solar panels will offset the weight of a second person
on board. Top-of-the-range solar cells to convert sunlight into electricity
are essential for a winning car : today's best solar cells, called dual-
or triple-junction gallium arsenide cells, are similar to those used
on spacecraft. The cells suck extra energy from sunlight by using 2 or
3 layers, each of which absorbs light of a slightly different wavelength.
Though up to 30 times more expensive per watt of power than standard commercial
cells, they are around twice as efficient, converting 20% or more of the
Sun's energy into electricity. But even coated with such cells, a good
solar car generates only 1.6 kW at best - about enough to run a hairdryer.
So designers must ensure that all power is channelled to the motor and
wheels and not wasted in air resistance and friction.
biofuels : producing biofuels such as
ethanol from food crops isn't worth the effortref.
Researchers should instead concentrate either on producing ethanol from
indigestible plant material such as cellulose, or on synthetic hydrocarbon
fuels. The comprehensive study finds that if all the corn (maize) produced
in the USA in 2005 were removed from food supplies and turned into ethanol,
just 12% of US gasoline demand would be offset. Turning soybeans into diesel
would account for only 9% of US diesel demand. Contrary to some recent
studies, this review finds that corn ethanol and soybean biodiesel do supply
more energy than is needed to produce them; soybean biodiesel wins out
over ethanol, providing 93% more energy than the amount used in growing,
reaping and converting the soy crop to fuel, as compared with 25% for ethanol.
Both also reduce levels of greenhouse gas emissions over fossil fuels;
biodiesel much more so. But neither biofuel could replace much petroleum
without a serious impact on food supplies, the researchers note. Corn ethanol
is a first-generation biofuel. It's as likely to realistically meet US
energy demand as a Wright brothers' plane would be to fly across the Atlantic.
Corn ethanol comes at the price of soil erosion and nutrient runoff. Producing
ethanol from cellulose is a much more environmentally preferable option.
Cellulose, an inedible plant fibre, could be obtained from switchgrass,
a prairie grass that could be grown on abandoned agricultural land. This
would avoid destroying natural habitats and would require small pesticide
input. Cellulosic ethanol plants are on trial in Spain and Canada. A US
Department of Energy report released on Friday 7 July said that biofuels
such as cellulosic ethanol could displace 30% of the fuel consumed in US
transportation by 2030, which Tilman thinks is a long-term viable goal;
although it would take significant technological advances.
biomass fuels : the diesel fuel in your
car could one day come from plants rather than oil wells, according to
chemists who have converted plant chemicals into useful hydrocarbons. Biomass
fuels are often touted as a green alternative to oil. Although the CO2
they produce when burnt is a greenhouse gas that contributes to global
warming, in theory it should be sucked up by the following year's crop
as it grows. The easiest way to extract energy from plants is simply to
burn them, and convert the heat to electricity. Although this is good for
stationary power plants, it isn't ideal for cars. Electric cars have to
be recharged frequently, which may make them unsuitable for long journeys.
A better idea is to convert plant material into fuel that vehicles can
use directly. This has been done with the fatty acids in vegetable oils,
which make up a small part of plant material. But now researchers have
found a way to create fuel from the carbohydrates that make up about 75%
of a plant's dried weight. The result is a much more efficient use of plant
materialref.
The plant-derived hydrocarbons are just like conventional diesel, so they
can be distributed through existing infrastructure. This makes the fuel
easier to use than hydrogen, for example, which requires a different kind
of pumping station and storage system. If all goes according to plan, one
could grow enough plants in the USA to power a significant percentage of
the country's vehicles. Carbohydrates have proven an expensive source of
fuel in the past. Glucose, for example, can be fermented into ethanol and
then added to gasoline, but this process is very inefficient, largely because
of the energy it takes to boil ethanol away from water at the end of the
fermentation. This energy-intensive process could be avoided if plant carbohydrates
were converted directly to the long-chain hydrocarbons that make up diesel
fuel. Because oil and water do not mix, these hydrocarbons float to the
top of the reaction mixture, where they are easily siphoned off. The chemists
first used a platinum catalyst to make carbohydrates containing five or
six carbon atoms react with hydrogen gas: plant material provides both
the carbs and the gasref.
A magnesium-based catalyst then knits these molecules together to create
the longer carbon chains required for diesel fuel. Adding more pressurized
hydrogen, and removing any remaining oxygen atoms with a platinum catalyst,
delivers the finished fuel. If this can be streamlined into a simpler process,
it would be able to compete commercially with ethanol production. The next
challenge is to work out how to extract the all-important carbohydrates
from plant matter. The chemists used a pure carbohydrate supply in their
tests, and plants may have to undergo extensive processing to remove unwanted
chemicals. We don't know how dirty a biomass stream we can tolerate
banana power could soon provide energy for 500 Australian homes. The Australian
Banana Growers’ Council has launched a study into the economics of
burning or fermenting unwanted fruit to provide electricity. Picky shoppers
reject bananas with discoloured skins, so at least 40,000 tonnes of bananas
are fed to cattle or mulched in Queensland every year. Researchers at the
University of Queensland, Brisbane, will work out the best way to turn
this waste into watts.
ethanol's reputation as an environmentally
friendly fuel is overblown, say researchers who claim that large-scale
farming of sugar cane or corn for alcohol is damaging the planet. Ethanol
is fermented from plant sugars and added to gasoline to boost the oxygen
content of car fuels and reduce pollution. Its use is on the rise, particularly
in Brazil and the USA. Its proponents argue that using it helps to reduce
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which may lessen global
warming. Although ethanol burns just like gasoline, the carbon it releases
is absorbed by the plants that will make the next lot of fuel. This means
that only a small amount of carbon dioxide (from transport and processing)
stays in the atmosphere. But supporters may be ignoring ethanol's other
environmental impacts. Producing ethanol-rich fuels tends to reduce biodiversity
and increase soil erosion because of the way that sugar cane is grown.
In Brazil, ethanol from sugar cane now accounts for about 40% of the fuel
in the country's vehicles. In the USA, a relatively cheap blend of fuel,
called E85 after its 85% ethanol content, is enjoying a growing
popularity. And on 28 June 2005, the US Senate passed an energy bill that
requires gasoline suppliers to add 8 billion gallons of ethanol a year
to their fuel by 2012, rising from the current consumption of 3 billion
gallons. But this increase is bad news for the environment, given the way
that crops are currently grown. When the sugar-cane fields are burned,
which is done to make harvesting easier, the fires can spread to nearby
native vegetation. The energy needed to generate and transport plant fertilizer
leads to significant CO2 emissions, and cleaning the sugar cane
also consumes vast quantities of water. In a visit to one of the distilleries
I observed about 3,900 litres of water being used per ton of sugarcane.
This drain coincides with the dry season, contributing to water shortages
and damaging river life (Dias de Oliveira M. E., Vaughan B. E. & Rykiel
E. J. Bioscience, 55. 593 - 602 (2005)). The research promises to reignite
the debate over whether ethanol is a green energy source. David Pimentel,
an agricultural scientist at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, has
famously claimed that ethanol production consumes more energy than it can
release in a carref,
but it has been contradicted by studies from Argonne National Laboratoryref
in Illinois and the US Department of Agricultureref.
Vaughan and his colleagues claim that their analysis is more thorough because
it accounts for the energy consumed in making fertilizer and farming practice.
Others say that although it is important to consider the environmental
implications of ethanol, it may still be a better bet than gasoline. Ethanol
isn't perfect, but I find it hard to believe we'd be better off with 100%
petroleum. A significant amount of ethanol production makes use of the
waste material left over after sugar cane or corn is harvested for food.
Better fermentation using different bacteria has also streamlined the extraction
process. Ethanol production efficiency has really improved over the last
few years
methanol : if you can't bear to be away from
your laptop during that camping trip to deepest Borneo, help may soon be
at hand. Lightweight generators powered by methanol are now on the market...
for the rich, at least. The device, designed to specifications for the
US Army by the California company UltraCell, weighs just 1.3 kg when fuelled
up and is the size of a novel. With a supply of 500 millilitres of methanol,
the cell can chuck out 45 watts for a day, which is enough to power a laptop.
The cell and fuel together are half the weight of the lithium batteries
needed to provide the same power. Unlike traditional generators, fuel cells
are totally quiet. And unlike batteries, they can be 'recharged' without
being plugged into the wall. Companies such as Toshiba have come up with
their own fuel cells for laptops. But most of these products run directly
on methanol, giving them a relatively low power output for their weight.
UltraCell focused instead on turning methanol into hydrogen inside the
device, which lets them pump out twice as much power. The difficulty is
that 'reforming' methanol to hydrogen involves a chemical reaction that
runs at about 280 °C. As the system gets smaller you really have to
work hard to manage the heat. UltraCell has managed to isolate the heat
in their cell from sensitive components just centimetres away, and the
whole thing is cool enough for you to put your hand on the casing.
Hill won't share the secret of how their insulation system works.
The hydrogen fuel cell in the device is similar to others that are already
on the market, with the added advantages of a better catalyst. This helps
to keep down the production of carbon monoxide, a by-product that can clog
fuel cells. The model now on sale is every bit as impressive as what the
big players have been touting for four or five years and haven't shown
us yet. With a price tag in the tens of thousands of dollars, the army
may be the only customer willing to pay for portable power just now. But
it should cost mere thousands in a year's time, opening the market to emergency-rescue
crews and others who spend long stints in the wilderness. Hill hopes prices
will fall to hundreds of dollars as the technology improves, low enough
to tempt adventurous campers. UltraCell plans to develop an even smaller
fuel cell that runs at 25 watts, which would be sufficient for a low-power
laptop. This lighter device should be much cheaper, and will be available
from the end of 2006.
a German inventor has angered animal rights activists with his answer to
fighting the soaring cost of fuel -- dead cats. Christian Koch, 55, from
the eastern county of Saxony, told Bild newspaper that his organic diesel
fuel -- a home-made blend of garbage, run-over cats, and other ingredients
-- is a proven alternative to normal consumer diesel. "I drive my normal
diesel-powered car with this mixture," Koch said. "I have gone 170,000
km (106,000 miles) without a problem." The Web site of Koch's firm, "Alphakat
GmbH," says his patented "KDV 500" machine can produce what he calls the
"bio-diesel" fuel at about 23 euro cents (30 cents) a litre, which is about
one-fifth the price at petrol stations now. Koch said around 20 dead cats
added into the mix could help produce enough fuel to fill up a 50-litre
(11 gallon) tank. But the president of the German Society for the Protection
of Animals, Wolfgang Apel, said using dead cats for fuel was illegal. "There's
no danger for cats and dogs in Germany because this practice is outlawed
in Germany," Apel told Bild on Wednesday in a story entitled "Can you really
make fuel out of cats?"
wind turbines : modellers have devised
a map that could guide the positioning of wind turbines. It shows wind
speeds 80 metres above the ground,which is the right height to turn most
turbines' blades and generate electricity. Coming up with speed measurements
at this height was difficult. Most windspeed recordings are made about
10 m off the ground, but wind speed increases the higher you go. So the
pair had to extrapolate from the few places where wind is measured at 80
metres, deriving models of how quickly the wind speed increases with height
in different parts of the world. They then applied these models to thousands
of the lower-altitude wind measurements. Electricity generation becomes
practical at locations with average wind speeds of about 25 kilometres
per hour. The researchers say there are enough places with this kind of
wind to produce 72 terawatts of electricity annually, in theory. Just 20%
of this could satisfy the world's energy needs. The map definitely would
be of interest to the wind power industry. From the early days, there has
been an issue with where the resource is. However, there are practical
obstacles to producing that much wind energy. Turbines cannot be erected
just anywhere; they are big, often noisy, and many worry about their effect
on bird populations. Although this limits the potential sites, the untapped
reserves of wind power could be even greater than 72 terawatts. All their
numbers are low estimate. Some of the world's windiest sites include the
North Sea, the tip of South America, Tasmania, and North America's great
lakes. The overall champ is Mount Washington in New Hampshire, where winds
clock in at 60 kilometres an hour
Tapping the power of the wind doesn't have to mean peppering the skyline
with vast turbines. The inventor of a pocket-sized windmill says his tiny
device could power wireless networks of sensors in remote locations. Wireless
networks have freed us from miles of cumbersome wiring needed to carry
information, but the electronic 'nodes' of such networks still need power.
If geologists want to place hundreds of sensors on a mountain to monitor
seismic activity, for example, they either have to supply electricity using
cables or hike out to each sensor every 6 months or so to replace batteries.
The problem is keeping the nodes powered all the time. His windmill is
about 10 cm across, and is attached to a rotating cam that flexes a series
of piezoelectric
crystals as it rotates. Piezoelectric materials generate a current
when they are squeezed or stretched, and are commonly used to make a spark
in gas lighters. Priya has found that a gentle breeze of 16 km/hr can generate
a constant power of 7.5 milliwatts, which is more than enough to keep an
electronic sensor running. He unveiled his windmill earlier in 2005ref,
and has now followed up with precise details of the device's abilities
(Priya S, App. Phys. Lett. 87, 184101 (2005)). The first trials of completely
wireless sensor networks used photovoltaic cells for power. But these did
not always work, since a spate of cloudy days could cause a node to shut
down. The idea failed because light isn't available everywhere and all
the time. So researchers have turned to piezoelectric materials that can
harvest 'ambient power' from the vibrations around them. Some scientists
are trying to use the vibrations of passing cars to power sensors that
monitor the structural health of bridges, or to tap the shaking of an aircraft
to run sensor networks without needing to pack more wiring into an already
crowded hull. We're all trying to scavenge that wasted vibrational energy.
His clever contribution to the field is to create vibrations where they
do not already exist, from the power of a breeze. The piezoelectric generator
is much more efficient way of converting wind energy on a small scale than
the conventional generators that create energy for the national power grid
from wind turbines. A conventional generator that used a 10-centimetre
turbine would convert only 1% of the available wind energy directly into
electricity. A piezoelectric generator ups that to 18%, which is comparable
to the average efficiency of the best large-scale windmills. Piezoelectric
harvesting is a rapidly developing field, which will probably become much
more common as electronic circuits get smaller and require less power.
Priya has also patented a much smaller device, measuring just 0.5 cm a
side. This is driven by a smaller turbine fitted with tiny wind-catching
cups, just like the devices used by meteorologists to measure wind speed.
He is developing this system to capture energy from even lighter winds.
Web resources :
tidal turbines : the biggest tidal
project that has been installed is a huge barrage across the river in La
Rance, France, which has a capacity of 240 megawatts. The first experimental
tidal mills were installed in 2003: a 300-kilowatt turbine was sited off
the north Devon coast in Britain and another of the same capacity was placed
near Hammerfest, Norway. On September 2004 6 turbines will be attached
to concrete piles hammered into the bedrock 9 metres below New York's East
River's surface. As the tide surges in and out, the heads pivot to face
the current and the blades spin.
harnessing power from the vertical motion of a walker's hips : hikers
toiling under the weight of a heavy backpack needn't just get hot and sweaty
from their efforts. Some of the energy they expend in walking can now be
captured by a backpack devised by US researchers, which converts it to
electricity that can power portable electronics. The pack, which weighs
about 20-38 kg depending how much power you need, generated up to 7.4 watts
of power when tested on a treadmill. That's enough to keep your GPS locator
and a head-lamp running indefinitely in the wilderness - potentially useful
for soldiers or rescue workers. They could even take a break now and then
without losing power, as surpluss energy is stored in lightweight batteries.
Walking is a particularly good source of human power: during steady hiking
the muscles produce up to 100 W. As far back as 1967, scientists at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology used piezoelectric devices, which
generate electricity when squeezed, inserted into the heel of a shoe to
create power for portable electronics such as pacemakers. But mechanical
generators housed in shoe heels have tended to be rather cumbersome and
fragile. The pack sits on sliding rails, to harness the up and down movement
of your hips. The backpack is spring-loaded, so it can bounce up and down
when the wearer walks. This moves a toothed rod, which meshes with a gearwheel.
As the gearwheel rotates, it generates electricity. The heavier the load,
the more power the pack generates. But the researchers were concerned that
the shifting load might force the wearer to use more energy in walking,
much as a bicycle dynamo puts a greater strain on a cyclist. So they measured
the metabolic rates of their test subjects by looking at how much oxygen
they consume. To their surprise, they found that the extra energy needed,
relative to a fixed pack, was far less than predicted. It seems that the
wearers changed their gait to walk more efficiently when wearing the sliding
packref1,
ref2,
ref3.
This doesn't come as a shock to Andy Ruina
of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, a specialist in the mechanics
of walking. He has shown in theory how systems of masses and springs attached
to a human body can reduce the energy cost of walking. It seems that Rome
and colleagues have hit on a similar arrangement. "There is probably room
for improvement both in getting more electricity out and in decreasing
the metabolic cost. Perhaps that could one day make it light enough for
use by casual backpackers. Such improvements might be made as the pack
is developed for commercialization by a spin-off company in Pennsylvania
called Lightning Packs. One could then generate electricity while carrying
a load more economically and with greater comfort than with a conventional
backpack. It would be almost like getting energy for free. This backpack
is just the latest in a series of devices that aim to extract energy from
the human body. Such devices, which rely on the ever-decreasing power consumption
of consumer electronics, could eventually spell an end to the frustration
of having your laptop's batteries run out halfway through a long flight.
Thermoelectric devices that convert body heat to electricity were explored
in the late 1970s, and the Japanese electronics company Seiko used this
principle in the 1990s to make a human-powered 'thermic' wristwatch. Also
in the 1990s Seiko released its more successful 'kinetic' range of watches,
which harvest the energy of movements of the wearer's arm to spin a tiny
energy-generating rotor. There may be even more dramatic ways of harnessing
power from the human body. Some researchers have devised 'biofuel' cells
that produce electricity from the metabolic energy released in living organisms
as they burn up glucose. In principle, such a device could be plugged directly
into your bloodstream. So far, however, these bio-batteries have been demonstrated
only in grapes.
From mounting solar panels on rooftops to using biodiesel in vehicles,
Boston-area campuses, and many others across the country, are trying to
become more environmentally friendly. Locally, Tufts and Harvard are leading
the way, while MIT's planned campuswide sustainable energy project announced
a couple of months ago promises to step up its existing efforts. Campus
sustainability programs typically focus on waste management, transportation,
and energy efficiency, but going green can encompass a variety of approaches.
For example, schools may buy power generated from renewable fuels, better
manage water use and water runoff, use sustainable construction materials,
or buy locally grown foods. A major university-consisting of thousands
of students and faculty, dozens of buildings, and often its own transportation
system-has an environmental footprint much like that of a similarly sized
corporation or even a small town. For example, Harvard's greenhouse gas
emissions in 2005 totaled more than 320,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent,
nearly the same amount generated by all of Staples Corporation's staff
and facilities nationwide. Universities are future-oriented institutions
and think about their commitments to citizenship, so it makes sense for
them to look at their environmental impacts. Quantitative nationwide assessments
of the environmental impact of these initiatives haven't been done yet,
partly because there are no uniform reporting standards. But there is little
doubt that green programs are becoming part of campus culture. A 2001 survey
of almost 900 U.S. colleges and universities by the National Wildlife Federation
found that > 60% were recycling various materials and working to reduce
energy and water consumption.Green campus programs are catalyzing action
at their institutions by engaging staff, administrators, students, and
faculty, and they are producing impressive environmental and energy results.
Campuses have been quick to take such actions partly because of promised
financial savings. For example, a campaign launched last year to close
fume hoods in Harvard Medical School labs when not in use is projected
to save $120,000 per year in energy costs. Bigger projects may come with
added up-front costs but often pay for themselves over time in energy savings.
For example, construction costs for energy-efficient "green" buildings
are typically about 2.5 to 5 percent higher than conventional buildings.
But according to one study conducted for Harvard by a U.K.-based consulting
firm specializing in sustainable buildings, requiring such a standard on
the planned Allston campus could reduce its heating and cooling load requirements
by > 50%, resulting in lower energy bills. As the following snapshots indicate,
sustainability is becoming a core value for Boston-area schools. In 1999,
the Tufts Climate Initiative was created to help the university meet or
beat the greenhouse gas emissions reduction target under the Kyoto Protocol
(7% below 1990 levels by 2012). According to Creighton, Tufts has nearly
reached this goal, which should translate into a 30 percent reduction of
the school's projected emissions under a business-as-usual growth path.
To achieve this, Tufts added solar panels, solar-powered water heaters
and other energy-efficient design features to several campus buildings.
It buys its electricity from a supplier that uses mainly hydropower. Tufts
has also installed campuswide energy-saving upgrades, ranging from improved
cooling systems for computer data centers to high-efficiency fume hoods
in laboratories. Tufts is a member of the Chicago Climate Exchange, a forum
where North American companies and organizations make voluntary (but legally
binding) commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and trade
credits for these reductions. The university may sell some of its credits
next year, though it won't make much money from them. Rather, Tufts's goal
is to help shape a market-based approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Oganizing our work around climate change gives us a very measurable focus.
The benefits are quantifiable, and most actions save money. As one example,
improvements to the heating and ventilation systems at Tufts's Pearson
chemistry complex paid for themselves in 2 years in lowered energy costs.
With new buildings popping up on the Harvard campus in Cambridge and major
construction planned in Allston over the next several decades, reducing
the university's environmental impact will be a challenge. More buildings
inevitably means more energy and resources used, so one approach for the
Harvard Green Campus Initiative (HGCI), created in 2001, is to make the
buildings themselves more environmentally friendly. 3 of Harvard's buildings
have received rankings from the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program, a four-level rating
system that certifies energy-efficient, water-conserving buildings: the
Harvard School of Public Health's Landmark Center headquarters, Radcliffe's
Schlesinger Library, and the One Western Avenue graduate student housing
center in Cambridge. 10 more Harvard projects are under consideration for
similar rankings. One Western Avenue is 50% more energy efficient than
what is required for conventional buildings. Harvard also fills its campus
diesel vehicles, such as the shuttle buses that run between Harvard Business
School and Cambridge, with a blend of 80% diesel and 20% biodiesel at the
university's own biodiesel fueling station in Allston. Harvard spent $60,000
to install the pumps, a sum it expects to recover in fuel cost savings
within 5 years. Investing in sustainability makes business sense. According
to HGCI, many energy efficient upgrades that it has recommended for campus
buildings, such as lighting retrofits and irrigation meters, have paid
for themselves in energy savings in as little as 1-2 years. In 1998, an
Environmental Protection Agency inspection team found more than 3,000 legal
violations at MIT and fined the university $555,000. Since then, the university
has worked to clean up its act. MIT recently achieved a 40% recycling rate,
up from 5% in the 1990s, and has pledged that all new campus buildings
will be designed to earn at least the second-highest LEED rating. One current
showpiece project is a storm-water management system at the new Stata Center
that channels rainwater runoff from surrounding plazas through a nearby
constructed wetland and uses the filtered water to flush toilets. The project
reduces runoff of unfiltered storm water into the Charles River and fulfills
half of the Stata Center's water demands, reducing MIT's city water usage
by almost 750,000 gallons per year. MIT green campus activities should
get a major boost from the campuswide energy initiative proposed in May
by a faculty panel. Along with big investments in energy research, the
panel called on MIT to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to a level that
is 32 percent below the business-as-usual growth rate by 2015. MIT expects
to announce details for this project later this year
Web resources :