Archive for the 'Clean Energy' Category

After Gutenberg: IBM claims to have developed most efficient solar cell technology

After Gutenberg reports in IBM Concentrator Photo Voltaic Cells that

IBM has managed to squeeze 230W of power on to a centimeter square of solar panel using concentrator photovoltaics. The energy was then converted to 70W of usable electric power, the best power efficiency yet achieved, the company claims.

Relying on a piece in EETimes, After Gutenberg, which routinely spots the details that matter, points out that this is a place where semiconductor and photovoltaic technologies overlap. After Gutenberg further quotes the EEtimes as follows:

The IBM researchers used a very thin layer of a liquid metal made of a gallium and indium compound that they applied between the chip and a cooling block. Such layers, called thermal interface layers, transfer the heat from the chip to the cooling block so that the chip temperature can be kept really low.

They suggest that if the silicon can be cooled effectively, concentrated photovoltaics could take over as the cheapest form of solar energy.

However, IBM admits there is much work to be done to move the research project from the lab to the fab.

By using a much lower number of photovoltaic cells in a solar farm and concentrating more light on to each cell using larger lenses, IBM’s system enables a significant cost advantage in terms of a lesser number of total components.

The researchers said that the concentration increases the power of the sun’s rays by a factor of ten, allowing cells that normally generate 20W of power to generate 200W instead.

Their initial results were presented at this week’s 33rd IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists conference , where the researchers showed how their liquid metal cooling interface is able to transfer heat from the solar cell to a copper cooling plate much more efficiently than anything else available today.

“We believe IBM can bring unique skills from our vast experience in semiconductors and nanotechnology to the important field of alternative energy research,” said Dr. Supratik Guha, the scientist leading photovoltaics activities at IBM Research. “This is one of many exploratory research projects incubating in our labs where we can drive big change for an entire industry while advancing the basic underlying science of solar cell technology.”

The researchers developed a system that achieved the “breakthrough” results by coupling a commercial solar cell to an IBM liquid metal thermal cooling system using methods developed for the semiconductor industry.

IBM adds that concentrator-based photovoltaics technologies have the potential to offer the lowest-cost solar electricity for large-scale power generation, “provided the temperature of the cells can be kept low, and cheap and efficient optics can be developed for concentrating the light to very high levels.”

John Walko, “IBM claims major boost in solar cell efficiency,” in EETimes Europe.

Via the increasingly indispensable, and ever mysterious J.C.W. at After Gutenberg.

Solar Power, Alchemy, and Magic Numbers

There are magic numbers in New Jersey: $450, $550, $771, $150 and $600.

In Jersey you can produce a widget that would cost you $150 to buy, use or sell the widget, and then sell it again for $450 to $550 - that is sell it for $600 or $700. The question is, how much does it cost to produce? And the raw ingredients and fuel are free, so the production costs are only are only the amortized costs of the machine.

Allow me to explain. Continue reading ‘Solar Power, Alchemy, and Magic Numbers’

Solar Power Tax Deduction

The US Tax Code allows a one time tax deduction of up to $2000 and up to 30% of the cost of a photovoltaic solar energy system (Click here for IRS, or click here). So any taxpayer who install this kind of system will get back 30% of the first $6,666.67 - up to $2,000. Typical residential scale full sized solar energy systems cost $28 to $80 thousand, so that tax rebate is fairly trivial for most of the US. But if you live in NJ, California, or somewhere where electricity costs more than twenty Cents per kwh, it makes sense.

Consult your tax advisor. Then consult your local solar electric contractor.

BMCC Student Channels Jack Abramoff

Curtis Brown, president of the Student Government at the Borough of Manhattan Community College is following in the footsteps of a young Jack Abramoff. As reported in the New York Daily News, May 13, 2008, Brown is trying to evict the New York Public Interest Research Group, NYPIRG from BMCC.The PIRGs have always focused on things like responsible government, consumer protection, and an informed citizenry making intelligent decisions. As chairman of the College Republicans, in 1983, Abramoff and his right-wing storm troopers did not “seek peaceful coexistence with the left.” They felt that their “job is to remove them from power permanently.” Brown is doing what Abramoff tried to do 25 years ago.

Here’s what Thomas Frank wrote in the New York Times, August 29, 2006, “Defunders of Liberty”

Abramoff and his clean-cut campus radicals pushed their own “defund the left” campaign with characteristic élan, declaring war on Ralph Nader’s Public Interest Research Groups, or PIRG, environmental and consumer activist outfits that were funded by student activity fees on some campuses. The young conservatives were always careful to cast the issue as a matter of “student rights” versus political coercion, but Abramoff clearly saw it as an avenue to ideological victory. “When we win this one,” he boasted in 1983, “we’ll have done more to neutralize Ralph Nader than anyone else, ever.”

The NY Times article is re-published in the blogosphere, click here, and here, and can be googled or yahooed.

Abramoff, currently serving 70 months for conspiracy and fraud, has also admitted to tax evasion, defrauding his clients and conspiring to bribe public officials.

The Future of Energy

Thursday, March 6, 2008, I attended a seminar on solar and wind power at the Atlantic County Utilities Authority, ACUA, clean energy plant, hosted by Cassandra Kling of Clean Energy Holdings. It’s a small plant: 7.0 MW of wind and 0.5 MW of solar, it provides about 0.1% of New Jersey’s power. On the way back I drove into the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Ocean County, NJ, to look around and to get a visceral feel for the place. Oyster Creek provides about 10% of New Jersey’s power. (Click here for the official story or here for NJPIRG.)

There are armed guards outside the nuclear plant. There are watchtowers, presumably with armed sentries. They really don’t want people looking around, “getting a feel for the place”. They looked me over, looked at my driver’s license, searched my car – looked in the trunk, looked under the hood, looked in the front seat, the back seat, under the car, and then escorted me out of the complex. I felt like Arlo Guthrie in ” Alices’s Restaurant” (Click here for Arlo on YouTube“, here for Arlo.net) exceptin’ the fact that I wasn’t arrested.

Continue reading ‘The Future of Energy’

Elisabeth Rosenthal/NYT: Europe, Cutting Biofuel Subsidies, Redirects Aid to Stress Greenest Options

Elisabeth Rosenthal, writing in The Times, report that European policy makers are beginning to smell the coffee on biofuel subsidies:

Governments in Europe and elsewhere have begun rolling back generous, across-the-board subsidies for biofuels, acknowledging that the environmental benefits of these fuels have often been overstated.

But as they aim to be more selective, these governments are discovering how difficult it can be to figure out whether a particular fuel — much less a particular batch of corn ethanol or rapeseed biodiesel — has been produced in an environmentally friendly manner. Biofuels vary greatly in their environmental impact.”A lot of countries are interested in doing this, but it’s really hard to do right,” said Ronald Steenblik, research director of the Global Subsidies Initiative in Geneva. “You can’t look at a bottle of ethanol and tell how it’s produced, whether it’s sustainable. You have to know: Was the crop produced on farmland or on recently cleared forest? Did the manufacturer use energy from coal or nuclear?”

Several countries - including Australia, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, as well as parts of Canada - have removed or are revising incentives for farmers, biofuel refiners and distributors.     Continue reading ‘Elisabeth Rosenthal/NYT: Europe, Cutting Biofuel Subsidies, Redirects Aid to Stress Greenest Options’

Stove for the Developing World’s Health - Amanda Leigh Haag, THe New York Times

There are two sets of problems associated with indoor cooking in less-affluent countries: toxicity from the burning process, and access to fuel. (The third set of problems would be fire risk, which we won’t address here). Amanda Leigh Haag’s piece, Stove for the Developing World’s Health, discusses some approaches to the problem.

When Kurt Hoffman visited Tanzania in the 1970s as a young product-development researcher, he could hardly bear to enter village huts to ask questions.

Some 30 years later, when Mr. Hoffman returned to the field in his position as director of the Shell Foundation, a charity in Britain established by the Shell Group, not much had changed.

“To find that it still exists,” he said, “I was appalled by it. I said to myself, ‘There has to be a better way.’ “

And there may be. The foundation has partnered with Envirofit International at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, to introduce the first market-based model for clean-burning wood stove technology to the developing world.

This year, the team plans to begin distributing 10 million stoves, focusing first on India, Brazil, Kenya and Uganda at a variety of prices over five years. Mr. Hoffman played a leading role in the development of the Shell Foundation’s ‘Breathing Space’ program, founded in 2002, one of the first to focus on the problem of indoor air pollution.

Half of the world population and 80 percent of rural households in developing countries cook with solid fuels like wood, coal, crop residues and dung. In many instances, women cook around open fires, typically with a pot atop three large stones and a wood fire in the middle.

No comprehensive worldwide censuses exist to provide hard numbers.Indoor air pollution, including smoke and other products of incomplete combustion like carbon monoxide, is a major environmental risk factor, usually ranking behind lack of clean water, poor sanitation and malnutrition. The problem does not only afflict the poorest populations. Many affluent households cook on traditional biomass stoves or open fires by choice or because they live in rural areas without electricity or access to modern fuels.

The World Health Organization estimates that 1.6 million people a year die of health effects resulting from toxic indoor air. The problem disproportionately falls on women and children who spend hours each day around the hearth.

Of that 1.6 million, one million children die of pneumonia, and 600,000 women die prematurely of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases like bronchitis and emphysema. In China, epidemiologic studies indicate that 420,000 people a year die because of indoor air pollution, 40 percent more than the premature deaths attributed to outdoor air hazards in the pollution-choked urban areas there.

Envirofit was formed in 2003 as a result of two senior undergraduate research projects at the Engines and Energy Conversion Laboratory of Colorado State. It develops engineering and technology solutions.

The Shell Foundation estimates that it has invested $10 million in Envirofit’s effort to produce 300,000 stoves on a pilot scale and plans to invest $25 million more to sponsor the stove effort.

For decades, numerous small-scale efforts to introduce improved stoves in countries like China, India and Nepal have achieved modest gains.

You can design something that looks great in the laboratory,” Kirk R. Smith, an environmental health scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, said. “But you get it out in the households, and five years later, you can’t even find it, let alone see that it’s actually achieving.”

Dr. Smith, who is not involved with the Shell-Envirofit partnership and who will be an independent reviewer of the program, has researched health effects of air pollution in the developing world since the early 1980s. He said one challenge had been the lack of randomized research trials that can show cause and effect, rather than just correlations.

“It’s been shown that children living in houses using open fires with solid fuels will have more pneumonia than children living in houses that are using cleaner fuels,” Dr. Smith said. “But those houses are different in other ways, too. They tend to be richer, have better education and may have better nutrition. So the effect may not be due to just the pollution.”

Dr. Smith and his colleagues have recently completed a five-year study of Guatemalans cooking on open fires versus improved stoves, the first such randomized trial, they say. The research, the team says, combined with studies in Asia, suggests additional health problems from indoor air pollution, including higher frequency of cataracts, partial blindness, tuberculosis, low birth weights and high blood pressure. The researchers found that cleaner stoves had larger effects than reducing salt in the diet on lowering blood pressure in women, results published last July in Environmental Health Perspectives.

Scientists measure air pollutants by the concentration of small particles considered safe to inhale. The W.H.O. target is an annual average of 10 to 35 micrograms of particles in a cubic meter of air per year. The Environmental Protection Agency calls for 15.

Yet houses that rely on traditional stoves or open fires typically register in the hundreds or, in some cases, thousands, Dr. Smith said.

At Envirofit headquarters in the old Fort Collins power plant, researchers and engineers are designing and testing clean-burning stoves that they say will significantly improve air quality and require less wood fuel. An important feature will be the ability to control carefully the air pulled in, said Bryan Willson, a mechanical engineer who founded the Engines and Energy Conversion Laboratory and was a co-founder of Envirofit.

Too much intake cools the process, leading to incomplete combustion. In a modern gas stove, nearly 100 percent of the carbon is burned to carbon dioxide. With traditional stoves in the developing world, 90 percent is fully converted to CO2. The remainder forms a toxic cocktail of byproducts like benzene, carbon monoxide and formaldehyde that billow out in soot and smoke. Envirofit’s stoves will be designed with an insulated chamber that cuts down on energy loss and maintains heat inside the chamber walls.
Envirofit has plans not only to engineer the stoves, but also to market them. The hundreds of prior stove projects, Dr. Willson said, were not “guided by a real strategic vision of what it means to understand who the customer is, what they need and how to get it produced.”

Envirofit has been visiting rural areas to study factors like the ergonomics of cooking habits and preferred color schemes. In India, women tend to squat while cooking, making height an important consideration.

Envirofit will offer a variety of sleek ceramic stoves from single to multipot, with and without chimneys, and with colors like apple red, baby blue and gold. The cost is to start at $10 to $20 and run to $150 to $200.

“The women and the families that are buying them are no different from us,” the Envirofit program coordinator, Jaime Whitlock, said. “They want to buy something they’re proud of.”

Amanda Leigh Haag, Stove for the Developing World’s Health - New York Times.


McKinsey Report: U.S. could cut 40% of greenhouse gases with “negative” costs

McKinsey & Company released a report in November called “Reducing Greenhouse Gases: How Much at What Cost?

From the executive summary, available here:

  • Almost 40 percent of abatement could be achieved at “negative” marginal costs, meaning that investing in these options would generate positive economic returns over their lifecycle. The cumulative savings created by these negative-cost options could substantially offset (on a societal basis) the additional spending required for the options with positive marginal costs.

McKinsey is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a bunch of sandal-wearing, left-wing treehuggers. In fact, this particular study was funded by a number of energy companies. Nonetheless, they’ve come to these conclusions, and a quick look at their prominently website features progressive energy policy. For example, “The Case For Investing in Energy Productivity.”

Perhaps this represents a shift of the political center of gravity among American corporations. If so, a welcome change.

Thanks to David Roberts of Grist.org; see his piece “It Can Be Done” for more details, as well as Mathew Wald’s “Study Details How U.S. Could Cut 28% of Greenhouse Gases.

Nuclear Power - Not Green, Not Cheap. But It’s A Security Nightmare.

This Letter to the Editor, written by Larry, was published in the Asbury Park Press, Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 (Click Here). The full text is reproduced below.

Nuclear power too dangerous.

Nuclear power is not green or cheap. It is a security nightmare.

When you look at mining, milling and transporting nuclear fuel, nuclear power emits four to five times as much carbon dioxide as wind and solar. The fuel cycle also creates massive amounts of radioactive waste — 100,000 metric tons per plant per year. Thermal pollution from Oyster Creek kills fish, shellfish and amphibians. And radioactive wastes must be isolated from the environment for a long time.

No new nuclear power plants were built in the United States after electricity was deregulated. That’s not because of the Three Mile Island accident or the Chernobyl disaster, and not because of the protests against nuclear power or rational fears of the technology, but because of the time and expense to build new nuclear power plants. When you look at the capital costs of building nuclear plants, and add the costs of insurance, evacuation plans, security systems and government regulation, nuclear power becomes too expensive to compete.

So in 2005, the federal government mandated $125 million in tax breaks for each new nuclear power plant and provided loan guarantees of 80 percent of a plant’s cost, including overruns. Taxpayers pay for those tax breaks and loan guarantees. That does not make it cost-effective; it just shifts the burden.

Nuclear power is a security nightmare. If the Sept. 11 killers had crashed one of the hijacked planes into Oyster Creek rather than the World Trade Center or the Pentagon, much of the Jersey Shore would be like the area around Chernobyl — condemned, abandoned and uninhabitable.

If we were smart, we would move forward quickly on offshore wind, photovoltaic solar, geothermal, ocean current turbines and conservation.

Larry Furman

Vinod Khosla v Hermann Scheer

Why is Vinod Khosla, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, venture capitalist, and environmentalist, critical of Dr. Hermann Scheer, economist, member of the German Parliment, and author of Germany’s clean energy program?

Is this like a Wind Power advocate from west Texas criticizing California based Solar installer because there is too much rain and cloud cover in Seattle, for solar to work effectively?

Diane Moss

Diane Moss, above, writing on Diane’s POV, has a comprehensive analysis of Khosla’s criticism of Scheer.

As noted in my previous post, Scheer says says “A Solar global economy will enable the total demand for energy and raw materials to be met. … By the systematic use of solar … all material needs of humanity can be satisfied on a permanent basis.” (For the text of the article, click here.) And the fact is that Germany has set the standard.

Then there’s Ausra Solar, which has some pretty hot technology and hopes to be a pioneer in what the Venture Capitalist might call “The Solar Thermal Space.” Venture Capitalists, including Kleiner, Perkins, Caulfield, and Byers, and Khosla Ventures, have just invested $40 Million in Ausra. And Khosla runs Khosla Ventures. Maybe Khosla’s critical of Scheer because Scheer focuses on PhotoVoltaics, not Solar Thermal. Are Khosla’s criticisms of Scheer and Solar in Germany like Bill Gates’ criticisms of Steve Jobs and the Mac - i.e. different - and competing technology?

Energy Bills - Good for the Environment and the Economy.

Last summer’s energy bills were not good for the environment.

Yes, both houses of Congress passed energy bills “oriented toward increasing energy efficiency and boosting renewable power and biofuels.” But the House version had no Corporate Average Fuel Economy program (CAFE) car mileage mandate, thanks to the shortsightedness of Michigan Rep. John Dingell, (who believes himself to be an auto industry champion, but is killing the patient), and the Senate version had no Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) due to strong opposition from Senate Republicans. People who think about sustainable economies and environmentalists wanted both mandates in a final bill.

The final bill now includes a 35 mpg CAFE standard, an Renewable Electricity Standard of 15 percent, and 21 billion dollars of investment in the renewable energy economy.

Among other things, the 21 billion dollars will fund production tax credits for solar and wind power over a four-year period; it will fund research and development programs for renewable energy and job training programs for solar power installers; and it will fund individual tax credits for solar energy, home weatherization and purchase of fuel efficient vehicles like plug-in hybrid cars.

And 50 billion dollars in loan guarantees for new nuclear plants were dropped from the Senate version. (They were in the summer’s version.

While the Republicans like subsidizing the nuclear industry, and they like subsidizing the oil industry, they don’t like the Renewable Electricity Standard and the $21 billion tax package that will fund the bill, especially the $13.5 billion in higher taxes on oil companies. President Bush warned that he is likely to veto the bill if it passes the Senate. Sen. Pete Domenici said, “If it comes over here, we have no alternative but … war.” One sardonic environmentalist said “This war is as well thought out as the War in Iraq. Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who put a hold on the bill back in October, called the tax increase “discrimination against one industry.” (Please note that Hutchison received $284,000 in contributions from the oil and gas industries in 2005 and 2006, (click here) and a total of$1.3 million as of May, 2001 (click here).

The Republicans will fall on their swords. Then they will return as lobbyists. Truthout. Houston Chronicle. Washington Post. LA Times.

Texas v Massachusetts & NJ. Go Texas.

Texas, with environmentalists like T. Boone Pickens (official site) is building wind turbines. Click Here. In Texas, when they find that they have wind in their backyard, they want to use it to make money. In Massachusetts and New Jersey, when someone finds wind in his backyard his neighbors say ‘Hold on there, Cowboy. What you think you’re doin? You think this is Texas or somethin?’ Just ask Mike Mercurio.

Massachusetts, with Environmentalist Liberals like Ted Kennedy, is not building wind turbines. Cape Wind is swinging like an albatross, like NJ’s Offshore Wind Farm. Maybe they are worried they’ll find Jimmy Hoffa’s body swinging from the nacelle.

I’m glad the Texans are doing something right. And I’m not proud of Kennedy or Jon Corzine. Makes me almost wish I was a Texan.

Wind Power - 1976 - 2005, More Questions than Answers

Testimony before the NJ Governor’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Offshore Wind
April 14, 2005, Cape May Courthouse, 4 Moore Road, Cape May, NJ

Wind Power - 1976 and 2005 - More Questions Than Answers

Thank you for this opportunity today to share my observations regarding electricity generation technologies. I am a consultant with an academic background that includes utility economics and energy systems. I have provided consulting services to Public Service Enterprise Group at the Salem nuclear facility and at their corporate data center in Newark, NJ. I have also provided IT consulting services to Exelon / Amergen, to systems administrators of the Oyster Creek facility in an off-site location.

The first time I spoke before a body such as this was 1976, in Albany, NY, before a committee of the New York State Legislature on Energy, the Economy, and the Environment. The gist of my statement back then was “It is theoretically possible to power the New York City Subway System with wind driven turbines located in New York Harbor and off of Long Island.”

Continue reading ‘Wind Power - 1976 - 2005, More Questions than Answers’

Questions on Energy

Where do we go from here? How can we transition from fuel based energy systems to sustainable 21st Century technologies?

Where do we install various systems? How much they cost? How quickly do they pay for themselves? How might the technology evolve? And what are the logistical challenges of nuclear power? How do we manage radioactive waste? What about evacuation plans for the areas near nuclear power plants? A large percentage of the US population lives within 100 miles of the Indian Point reactor - everyone in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and The Bronx. Everyone in Northern NJ and Westchester. If nuclear power is so great, why then have no new nuclear power plants been built since the early 1980’s? Why are we so upset about Iran’s plans to build a nuclear facility? Why do nuclear plants require tremendous government subsidies?

Continue reading ‘Questions on Energy’

Green Light on Wind Farm in Maine

UPC Partners of Newton Mass, is building the 57 MW Stetson Wind Project on Stetson Mountain in Washington County, Maine. Click Here or Here. They will be using 38 GE turbines, of 1.5 mw each, producing enough electricity to power 27,500 homes. Project cost is expected to be $100 million, about $1.75 per watt. The capital costs for new coal plants are said to be about the same, perhaps a little cheaper. However, keep in mind:

  • No Fuel Cost associated with Wind, as with coal.
  • No Possibility of a catastrophic accident in a “Wind Mine” as happens with coal.
  • Wind workers don’t get ‘Black Lung.’
  • And of course, wind alleviates global warming. Coal causes it.

When you factor in fuel costs and environmental impact wind is cheaper. How much cheaper? I will try to find out.

I would rather have a wind farm in my backyard than a coal plant or a coal mine. (I just planted plum trees and cherry trees. A wind turbine turbine would look good.)