|
Written by Ransom Riggs
|
|
Wednesday, 06 June 2007 |
 At this week's WINDPOWER conference, there's lots of big talk about big wind, a big exhibition hall full of big manufacturers of huge wind
turbines and gigantic poles and massive transmission lines and other sorts of hi-tech geegaw. But the thing that most interested me was the small wind area.
It
was only a few booths, but there was something about it them appealed to me
as an individual, a green energy enthusiast and, let's face it, a typical
American consumer (hey, I could buy that!). For
about $15,000, for instance (much of which is permitting and installation
fees), you could invest in the Skystream 3.7, a small, sleek-looking wind
turbine that can generate between 40-100% of a home or small business' power
needs. (It actually does look pretty cool; the company calls it "the iPod
of wind power.") There's no battery or anything, it connects directly to
your home, and depending on how your local utility works, if it gets really
windy it might even start spinning your meter backwards (meaning the power
company pays you, rather than the other way around). Of course, it's not
quite plug-and-play yet (as iPods are): you have to have an average wind
speed of about 10mph, live on a half-acre with unobstructed views, make sure
your local zoning laws permit you to erect 42-foot structures on your
property and, oh yeah, find out if your power company will actually let you
hook this thing up. (Check out the company's website for more info.)
There's also Entegrity Wind
Systems, which manufactures small wind turbines designed to supplement
power at businesses and schools. In fact, they've partnered with several
impoverished school districts in Texas and provided them with turbines, each
of which last year saved about $70,000 per school in energy costs as a
result.
It seems the biggest problem with erecting small wind turbines here in Los
Angeles is the county's internecine permitting and approval process, which
can take up to a year, and is very expensive. For instance, it costs about
$2,200 just to to apply for one and have the county ask all your neighbors
with in a 500-foot-or-so radius of you what they think. (If more than one
of them doesn't like the idea, for whatever reason, you can either cough up
about $2,500 more to defend your permit at a public hearing, or give up.)
On top of that, you're looking at about $4,000 more in civil engineer
approvals, county-approved anti-climb devices, inspections now and in the
future, special signage, etc. Needless to say, it's a slog, but activists
in LA County are trying to reform the process. |
|
|
Written by Jon Schroeder
|
|
Wednesday, 06 June 2007 |
 Green skyscrapers offer so much for the average EcoGeek to drool over. Each one can contain hundreds of innovations that make the world a cleaner place, they build up, rather than out, and many of them are frikkin gorgeous.
Lucky for us, more and more eco-towers are popping up all the time. In fact, a symposium about greenscrapers called Mixed Greens: An International Survey of State-of-the-Art Sustainable Skyscraper Design just wrapped up last month in NYC.
Lucky for us, Jon Schroeder is on the case, and is bringing us the top ten green skyscrapers. |
|
This Post Continues»
|
| | |
|
Written by Hank Green
|
|
Tuesday, 05 June 2007 |
The majority of wasted energy in the world is wasted as heat. In your car engine, in your macbook, your fluorescent light bulbs, your computer's power supply. Heat leaks from electrical and mechanical devices and there is no way to stop it.
Or is there. We at EcoGeek have already reported on Petier devices, which extract electricity from hot surfaces. Unfortunately they're currently either too inefficient or too expensive to be practical.
But Oresk Symko, a physicist at the University of Utah has created a heat-to-electricity device that operates on a completely different principle. By converting the heat to sound waves, and then the sound waves to electricity using piezoelectric substances, Symko says that he can convert heat to electricity very efficiently.
Unfortunately, he doesn't tell us how efficiently, at least, not anywhere I could find. However, I do know that piezo-electric materials are very expensive, so I worry about the cost-effectiveness of the project.
But, if he can make it work, and cheaply, then his devices will likely be showing up everywhere from solar arrays to electric vehicle batteries. Hat tip to David. Via LiveScience
|
|
|
Written by Ransom RIggs
|
|
Tuesday, 05 June 2007 |
 Day one of the Windpower 2007 conference has come to an end, and having just
rubbed elbows with something like 6,000 attendees, 400-plus exhibitors and
national legislators and policymakers from around the country, I thought I'd
try to make sense of it all. The confab
was put on by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), and heavily
attended by many of folk who belong to it: wind energy producers,
manufacturers who produce things like wind turbines, poles, and transmission
lines and wind outreach and education organizations. The conference features
tons of panels, discussions and presentations, but much of the talk at this
year's Windpower focused on just a few issues: - A lot of people - and not just wind industry representatives, either -
believe that wind energy is and will remain an increasingly crucial part of
our national renewable energy portfolio. No one had anything particularly
negative to say about nuclear or other non-c02-emitting power generation
technologies, but all agreed that of those other options, none were as ready
as wind power was to step up to the plate and work. (It takes
years and years to bring a nuclear power plant online, for instance, and not
nearly as long to build and permit wind turbines). The wind industry feels
that its golden moment is now.
- The AWEA has set a really tough goal for itself and for the wind industry:
to produce 20% of the U.S.' power by the year 2020. As good as that sounds,
no one really knows how it's going to be accomplished. Panelist Bob
Lukefahr, of BP¹s alternative fuels division, stressed the challenges: It
will require "technology we haven't invented yet," he said, and entails "political and economic complexity this business has never faced before."
For starters, they're going to have to figure out how to deliver
all that energy; even if we had the turbines to do it right now, it would
cost at least $60 billion to build the transmission lines to get that power
onto the country's grid, according to AWEA President Randall Swisher.
- The future of the wind industry depends on the White House, and if the
next few presidents we have aren't wind-friendly, wind will stay small for
the long haul.
The good news is, there are plenty of states out there interested in having
the wind industry set up shop in their regions. At Monday's confab alone,
the mayor of Los Angeles and the governors of Montana and Iowa made nice to
the assembled windustryites, and at least one congressman (D.C.'s own Jerry
McNerney) and a senator (Tom Daschle) lent their support to the cause as a
whole. In short, the industry is booming, consumer interest in renewable
energy has never been higher, and the future depending in part on what
happens in the 2008 election looks bright. |
|
|
Written by John Barrie
|
|
Tuesday, 05 June 2007 |
Photosynth is an amazing photo and text software environment that will change the way you look at photos forever.
Blaise Aguera y Arcas presents a demo of Photosynth at the TED (Technology Entertainment Design) conference. He shows how his new software links photos together spatially and hints at the value Photosynth adds to your photo collection. The demo shows Photosynth creating amazing multidimensional spaces with zoom and navigation features just by scanning photos from Flickr. It creates a spatial map and places all photos of an object (such as Notre Dame, Paris) into a collage that is easy and intuitive to navigate.
While the spatial 3-D image collage is amazing, the information created when everyone’s photo tags are linked is even more amazing. Photosynth creates a dense information swarm around the objects it links together.
Photosynth is the brainchild of Blaise Aguera y Arcas, he also created Seadragon (acquired by Microsoft in 2006), the visualization technology that gives Photosynth its amazingly smooth digital rendering and zoom capabilities.
Seadragon and Photosynth create an interface that will make working with text and images on a screen preferable to working with paper. With the exception of reading at the beach, I can’t see any advantage for paper. |
|
|
Written by Hank Green
|
|
Monday, 04 June 2007 |
Recently Dave Burdick compared renewable energy to diet soda: You get all the fun without any of the guilt. Well, a randomly-associating commenter suddenly wondered about the effects of soda CO2 off-gassing on global warming.
Far be it from me to make light of a serious issue like global warming, but I really can't help but figure out the answer for myself.
So I found some quick (and occasionally disturbing) data:
- There's an average of 6 grams of CO2 in 1 liter of soda.
- The majority of CO2 used in the soft drink industry is a byproduct of, get this, petroleum refineries.
- There are 300 million people in America.
- And freakiest of all, the average American drinks 56 gallons of soda per year.
First of all, HOLY CRAP! Fifty Six Gallons Per Year! I've got a lot of catching up to do...
Anyhow...now for the math: 300 million people x 56 gallons per person x 3.78 liters per gallon x 6 grams of CO2 per liter soda / 1000 g per kg / 978 kg per ton = 389,570 tons of CO2 emitted by soft drinks yearly in America alone.
I'm sure someone will come along to check my math, but I'm fairly sure that's right.
Now, since most of this CO2 was going to be emitted from petroleum refineries anyway, it's not actually a CO2 emission. But it's pretty amazing that we, in effect, manage to sequester almost 400,000 tons of CO2 (the amount emitted by a town of around 45,000 people) in soda pop every year.
Now, if we could just keep buying them, and stop opening them.
Which brings up another point. Can a person go completely carbon neutral by purchasing soda and not opening it?
MORE MATH: Average person produces 9 tons of CO2 per year. Average liter of Coke contains 6 g of CO2. Bulk 2 liter bottle of Coke 79 cents. That's all our data.
6 grams of CO2 per liter x 2 liters per bottle / 1000 g per kg / 978 kg per ton = 0.000012 tons of CO2 per bottle. 9 tons per person / 0.000012 tons per bottle x 0.79 dollars per bottle= $590,000 dollars per person per year to go carbon neutral by buying Coca Cola.
Marvelous!
|
|
|
Written by Hank Green
|
|
Monday, 04 June 2007 |
 My goodness we live in a strange world. Some scientists in the Netherlands are currently working on growing meat in laboratories with the eventual aim of eliminating livestock. Even though I find this completely gross, and I can't imagine how they could effectively market such a product, it might actually be a good idea.
Cows and pigs are one of the biggest contributors to global warming because methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. Chickens alone produce about eight billion pounds of waste per year.
And then there's the whole "Omnivore's Dilemma." Should we choose to kill and eat other animals if we have a choice? Well, if these scientists have their way we'll be able to have our pork as well as our pig, and everyone will be happy. Oh...except the livestock industry.
Via TreeHugger and Reuters |
|
|
Written by Billy Shih
|
|
Monday, 04 June 2007 |
Rizhao is not the most well known city in China, but it is rising in fame as a promising example of citywide solar energy use. With a name that means "City of Sunshine," they have sure lived up to it - 99% of central district houses are using solar water heaters, as well as more than 30% of suburban and village houses in the surrounding area. This amounts to 500,000 square meters of solar water heaters, doing the work of half a megawatt of electricity. The trend extends to 6,000 houses using solar cooking facilities and 60,000 greenhouses heated using solar heat collectors. In addition, a majority of city lights and traffic signals use photovoltaics.
This is not some futuristic city on the rise; Rizhao is just "a small, ordinary Chinese city with per capita incomes even lower than in most other cities in the region." Credit for solar energy's popularity goes to the government, which has undertaken a tremendous campaign for the use of these technologies. Instead of subsidizing the use of solar heaters (which they could not afford in any case), they invested in research and development to lower the cost of the appliances, putting them at price parity with their electric counterparts. At the cheaper price, the use of solar water heaters becomes a no-brainer, saving the average household $120 a year. In addition, the city now mandates solar heating installations be incorporated into all new buildings.
|
|
This Post Continues»
|
|
|
Written by Dave Burdick
|
|
Monday, 04 June 2007 |
Diet soda is so lame. If you think soda is bad for you, you ought to just be cutting back on the soda.
Renewable energy is really exciting to talk about because it's like the diet soda of energy -- we can still drink all the goop we want, but it hurts us just a little less. Well, the American Solar Energy Society's report this year tells us we ought to be drinking a lot less goop if we're serious about saving ourselves from CERTAIN DOOM.
OK, maybe those aren't their exact words. But the ASES says that energy efficiency is more important than all other kinds of renewable energy put together. Check out the report and some graphics here. Of particular interest is this projection of where our energy savings should come from if we want to hit a 60% -- or 80% -- reduction in carbon emissions by 2030.
The report states that using less electricity through smart design, awareness, etc. could reduce carbon emissions by up to 57 percent by 2030. We say, let's get started. Check out our efficiency category to see what's up there.
Via TreeHugger.
|
|
|
Written by Hank Green
|
|
Sunday, 03 June 2007 |

OK, I'm about to cry...
In 1931, not long before he died, the [Edison] told his friends Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone: “I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.”
AGGHHHHCHCC!!!
That, from the New York Times Magazine, is the conclusion of an excellent article on the Clean Green Thinking of America's most famous inventor, Thomas Edison. You can read the whole article here, but the gist is that Edison worked on various green initiatives, including electric cars, wind turbines, and an off-the-grid home in New Jersey that the New York Times then called "utterly and for all time independent of the nearness or farness of the big electric companies."
From this, I learn two things. First, apparently "farness" used to be a word. Second, our reliance on cheap fossil fuels has created a kind of stagnation in the energy industry that is pretty depressing. It's just as Edison feared, we've had to wait until oil and coal are running out to tackle the abundant renewable energy created by our natural environment. He wasn't an environmentalist, so don't let the New York Times fool you there, but he knew a good idea when he saw one. And now, finally, we're moving forward once again.
|
|
|
Written by Alex Pasternack
|
|
Sunday, 03 June 2007 |
One million text messages. That's how residents of China's port city of Xiamen spread word to protest -- and eventually halt -- construction of a chemical plant on Thursday. The $1.4 billion facility was meant to produce the petrochemical paraxylene, exposure to which can cause eye, nose or throat irritation, affect the central nervous system and may cause death. Though international standards dictate that such a plant should be 100 km from the nearest city, the short text messages that mobilized Xiamen's smart mob warned the factory would have been only 16 km away.
While the central government is clearly showing more interest in protecting the environment, local governments, eager to cut corners in the name of economics, are helping block the path to sustainable development. But the Xiamen protests, thousands of people strong, are the latest sign of people power in China, where tens of thousands of protests over tainted land and water are recorded every year, threatening the government's dream of a "harmonious society" while pointing the way forward for environmental action in a place that seriously needs some.
That local officials in Xiamen reportedly began blocking text messages too in an attempt to stem the protests, and that the protests continued apace, is an indication that, try as it might, China's authoritarian controls simply can't keep up with the power of cell phones blogs, bulletin boards, and the smartmobs they might create. (Local governments are getting into the SMS act themselves, using text messages to warn citizens of floods and even stop protests.)
Clearly, stopping protests just isn't possible the way it used to be. Between increasing countryside unrest (there may be nothing scarier to the government) and deadly pollution (China's rural cancer rate rose by 23 percent in the past two years, and more than 70 percent of the country's waterways and 90 percent of its underground water are contaminated ) something's gotta give.
Since the plant's not been completely scrapped, residents are still protesting, according to Reuters. And the more word spreads, the more likely it is that protests will continue elsewhere too. An large expansion of a chemical plant in the southeastern city of Quanzhou that produces paraxylene and other chemicals was announced in March, funded by China's No. 2 oil company, Sinopec, Saudi Aramco, and ExxonMobil Corp. Paraxylene is a key material in polyethylene terephthalate (PET) saturated polyester polymers -- the stuff of which the world's plastic bottles are made. Via SFGate and Asia Sentinel |
|
|
Written by Billy Shih
|
|
Sunday, 03 June 2007 |

Much like the roofs of houses and warehouses, a car roof is just empty space, so why not hook up some solar cells to the latest hybrids? Solar Electrical Vehicles is looking to do just that with a solar roof module for hybrid cars. The cost is about $2000-$4000 for a supplemental battery and solar module rated at 200-300 watts. For the Prius this adds up to 20 miles per day of electric mode driving with higher-capacity batteries adding another 10 miles.
Modules in production work with the Toyota Prius, Highlander and RAV4 EV, Ford Escape Hybrid and Dodge Sprinter Hybrid. In the future they hope to integrate them with Teslas and upgrade to a 320-watt module, up from 212-watts currently.
While not adding a whole lot of economic benefit to hybrid cars, it's an easy solution for people looking to squeeze more juice out of them. Unlike solar additions in homes, hybrid cars have the technology already built in to benefit from a solar add-on making them a simple installation.
Via: Treehugger
|
|
|
Written by John Barrie
|
|
Saturday, 02 June 2007 |
Acumentrics Corporation, a leading developer of solid-oxide fuel cells and uninterruptible power supplies, has won a 2007 New England Innovation Award from SBANE, the Smaller Business Alliance of New England for their novel solid oxide fuel cell.
Acumentrics manufactures 5000-watt solid oxide fuel cell systems (SOFC) for power applications. They are also developing combined-heat-and-power units (which are like boilers that produce electricity) for the home market. In 2000 they acquired a novel fuel cell technology. Since then, they have increased the output of a single fuel cell tube from 1 watt to 60 watts. Today they have over 30 units working in the field, including ones that power visitor’s centers at Exit Glacier National Park in Alaska, and Cuyahoga National Park in Ohio.
One of their key innovations was making ceramic fuel cell technology shatter resistant. It is shatter resistant because of its shape -- it is a tube, not a thin sheet as most others have used --with a special composition of layers that prevents them from flaking off. Solid oxide fuel cells must handle temperature swings from 20 to 800ºC. Many other solid oxide fuel cells crack when they are cycled on and off, because of thermal shock.
But what really makes Acumentrics different is that they aren't waiting around for the mythical hydrogen economy. The fuel cells run on natural gas, propane, ethanol, diesel, biogas, and biodiesel. While using non-hydrogen fuel means that the cell will produce CO2, Acumentrics fuel cells consume half as much fuel as a comparable small-engine generator, per kW. So they produce the same amount of electricity, while consuming half as much fuel, and producing half as much CO2.
Via: Treehugger |
|
|