Solar-powered vehicles on road are still more of an oddity than a reality. But going by recent news, the sun may yet take wings in air and sails at sea!
Toyota’s 60,000-ton, seven story cargo ship can carry more than 6,200 cars at a time and regularly does so, transporting Toyota, Lexus and Scion vehicles from Toyota Motor Co. factories in Japan to Toyota’s 144-acre spread at this port in Los Angeles.
Toyota installed a test array, comprising 328 solar panels, on the top deck as an experiment to see if such a system would work effectively aboard a car carrier. There has been no problem since the panels were installed last December. No leakage, no wiring issues.
Electrical engineers at Toyota’s headquarters in Japan have found solar modules that are three times more efficient than the ones, in terms of using less space and generating same power.
Meanwhile, Solar Impulse, the solar powered test flight will take off by end of the year. With a 63 metres wingspan and 12,000 solar PV cells, it is armed with 400 kg of batteries to store the energy for night flying. The plane will not attain great speed but if it works, it could mean a lot for the aviation industry.
If land availability is what bogs down solar energy, why not lay out solar panels out there in our seas? Yes, we will still need cables to transport the energy, and water proofing of the panels. But can it not be studied? Do share your thoughts.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Is it too late to be a pessimist?
For the weekend, here is something interesting you can do – watch a film. It’s free for download from the Net.
French photographer Yann Arthus Bertrand's documentary Home is a collection of unique aerial footage from over 50 countries, showing how humans are mining the planet’s resources beyond the criteria of need. It offers a solution in moderation, intelligence and sharing.
Much like one of the astronauts recommended a trip to space for humans to overcome notions of borders and war, this film strikes the human conscience by providing hard evidence of disaster from greedy consumption. It takes you across the globe from the farmland of Australia to the cold unwelcoming plains of Siberia, from desert land to Antarctica, from poverty stricken Africa to the concrete jungles of skyscrapers and criss-crossing flyovers glittering at night!
Both the rich and poor are exploiting natural resources – one for a living, another for a lifestyle. But whether it is oil, or machinised agriculture, the clock is ticking. Can we slow down? Can we change? Or do we simply give up and carry on as usual?
Stark. Evocative. Silencing. The vivid colours of planet earth, from the blue and green and rust to the cruel brown gashes on the hill slope, it is a reminder of what we have and what we are doing.
It took 217 days of shooting in 54 countries, which added up to 488 hours of footage.
Interestingly, the emissions for the making of the movie were offset, by financing a project for Diffusion of anaerobic digesters in India!
Home was released free and worldwide to reach as many people as possible. To make this possible, the film was sponsored by PPR Group.
Message and visual delight apart, the movie has an equally appealing music score written by Armand Amar and recorded with the Budapest Symphony Orchestra and the Shanghai Percussion Ensemble.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
A new index
As the GDP goes up, what does it signify? How does it translate into our lives? Into how many lives, more importantly? Is it time to shift to some other index – like the Happy Planet Index?
The HPI was launched in 2006 as a marked departure from GDP and identified health and a positive experience of life as universal goals, besides natural resources. It combines three targets - high life expectancy, high life satisfaction, and a low ecological footprint. The ultimate efficiency ratio, it takes into consideration carrying capacity of the planet.
The second version has just been released with improved data from 143 countries. Costa Rica is the greenest and happiest country in the world, according to the HPI index.
Unique in the world for having combined its ministries of energy and the environment back in the 1970s, a staggering 99 per cent of its energy comes from renewable sources. In 1997, a carbon tax was introduced on emissions – with the funds gained being used to pay indigenous communities to protect their surrounding forests. Deforestation has been reversed, and forests cover twice as much land as 20 years ago. In 2007, the Costa Rican Government declared that it intended to become carbon neutral by 2021.
The US with its affluent lifestyle figures way below in the index, and that is largely owing to its BIG eco-footprint which requires more than 3 planets to sustain!
HPI is claimed to be a much better way of looking the success of countries than through standard measures of economic growth. The HPI shows, for example, that fast-growing economies such as the US, China and India were all greener and happier 20 years ago than they are today.
The HPI goes to prove that it is possible to live long, happy lives with much smaller ecological footprints than the highest-consuming nations.
In a telling commentary, the report recalls how British economist John Maynard Keynes thought that, by the end of the twentieth century, people would be working two days a week thanks to the great productivity increases he was seeing. He assumed that, rather than producing more to keep everyone in work, we would simply work fewer hours and take the benefits of increasing productivity as increasing leisure time. How could he have known that humanity would choose instead to continue working longer hours so as to produce and consume products that do not enhance our well-being, whilst ravaging our finite and precious natural resources?
Are we simply producing more and more of what we do not need? At the expense of the environment? Care to share your thoughts?
The HPI was launched in 2006 as a marked departure from GDP and identified health and a positive experience of life as universal goals, besides natural resources. It combines three targets - high life expectancy, high life satisfaction, and a low ecological footprint. The ultimate efficiency ratio, it takes into consideration carrying capacity of the planet.
The second version has just been released with improved data from 143 countries. Costa Rica is the greenest and happiest country in the world, according to the HPI index.
Unique in the world for having combined its ministries of energy and the environment back in the 1970s, a staggering 99 per cent of its energy comes from renewable sources. In 1997, a carbon tax was introduced on emissions – with the funds gained being used to pay indigenous communities to protect their surrounding forests. Deforestation has been reversed, and forests cover twice as much land as 20 years ago. In 2007, the Costa Rican Government declared that it intended to become carbon neutral by 2021.
The US with its affluent lifestyle figures way below in the index, and that is largely owing to its BIG eco-footprint which requires more than 3 planets to sustain!
HPI is claimed to be a much better way of looking the success of countries than through standard measures of economic growth. The HPI shows, for example, that fast-growing economies such as the US, China and India were all greener and happier 20 years ago than they are today.
The HPI goes to prove that it is possible to live long, happy lives with much smaller ecological footprints than the highest-consuming nations.
In a telling commentary, the report recalls how British economist John Maynard Keynes thought that, by the end of the twentieth century, people would be working two days a week thanks to the great productivity increases he was seeing. He assumed that, rather than producing more to keep everyone in work, we would simply work fewer hours and take the benefits of increasing productivity as increasing leisure time. How could he have known that humanity would choose instead to continue working longer hours so as to produce and consume products that do not enhance our well-being, whilst ravaging our finite and precious natural resources?
Are we simply producing more and more of what we do not need? At the expense of the environment? Care to share your thoughts?
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Impasse
It is not the same as accepting a binding cap on emissions but there is intention behind a pledge! The US has just joined the other G-8 industrialized nations in pledging to halt the increase of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, and to keep the worldwide temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius.
No commitment, no plans on how it will be done. So does it constitute anything?
The draft was drawn up by government officials from the G-8 nations, which are to meet in Italy this week.
Meanwhile, the new Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh has said that India won't accept binding caps on its emissions of greenhouse gases. “India will not accept any emission-reduction target--period,” Ramesh said. “This is a non-negotiable stand.”
This is also the Chinese stand that sees historic responsibility as the precursor for action.
Unless developing nations accept some target, US has indicated its non-inclination to do the same. This has led to discussions whether the climate talks will have to change track from emission targets.
After all the modest targets set under Kyoto protocol have not been achieved. Under Kyoto, participating nations promised to reduce emissions below 1990 levels by 2012--instead, their emissions have been rising steadily.
From 1990-2006, emissions increased in Japan by over 5 percent; in the US by 14 percent; in Canada by 20 percent; and in Australia by 30 percent.
Could investment in clean energy be the better option? The Indian government plans to invest $100 billion in solar energy production over the next decade, with a target of 20 GW by 2020. In China, officials will soon unveil a massive ten-year renewable energy investment plan on the order of $440-660 billion.
But can the climate wait for the outcome of these plans to take fruit in some years? Already there is enough evidence of the process having already started to impact. Not only on crop productivity, but on health, water availability, etc. The time to act is very short, less than a decade.
Can we wait?
No commitment, no plans on how it will be done. So does it constitute anything?
The draft was drawn up by government officials from the G-8 nations, which are to meet in Italy this week.
Meanwhile, the new Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh has said that India won't accept binding caps on its emissions of greenhouse gases. “India will not accept any emission-reduction target--period,” Ramesh said. “This is a non-negotiable stand.”
This is also the Chinese stand that sees historic responsibility as the precursor for action.
Unless developing nations accept some target, US has indicated its non-inclination to do the same. This has led to discussions whether the climate talks will have to change track from emission targets.
After all the modest targets set under Kyoto protocol have not been achieved. Under Kyoto, participating nations promised to reduce emissions below 1990 levels by 2012--instead, their emissions have been rising steadily.
From 1990-2006, emissions increased in Japan by over 5 percent; in the US by 14 percent; in Canada by 20 percent; and in Australia by 30 percent.
Could investment in clean energy be the better option? The Indian government plans to invest $100 billion in solar energy production over the next decade, with a target of 20 GW by 2020. In China, officials will soon unveil a massive ten-year renewable energy investment plan on the order of $440-660 billion.
But can the climate wait for the outcome of these plans to take fruit in some years? Already there is enough evidence of the process having already started to impact. Not only on crop productivity, but on health, water availability, etc. The time to act is very short, less than a decade.
Can we wait?
No takers for energy saving?
A recent study by the World Resources Institute (WRI) calculates that India could reduce its annual electricity usage by 183.5 billion kWh by investing US$10 billion in energy efficiency improvements. A doubling of demand by 2030 will mean accelerated generation. Energy savings is the cheapest way. Nuclear power is five times more expensive than the energy savings accrued!
However, the biggest barrier for energy efficiency improvement in India is not cost, but the availability of qualified technology, products, and people, says the study. India desperately needs energy efficiency technology providers, equipment manufacturers, and — above all — energy service providers (ESCOs) which though growing at 68 percent is still too small to address the task.
What plans does the new government have to tackle energy efficiency? Is there really a dearth of qualified people? Is there lack of incentives, encouragement?
However, the biggest barrier for energy efficiency improvement in India is not cost, but the availability of qualified technology, products, and people, says the study. India desperately needs energy efficiency technology providers, equipment manufacturers, and — above all — energy service providers (ESCOs) which though growing at 68 percent is still too small to address the task.
What plans does the new government have to tackle energy efficiency? Is there really a dearth of qualified people? Is there lack of incentives, encouragement?
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Chicken in your fuel & a dry washing machine
Continuing with our earlier post on abundant sources of energy, how about hydrogen which is plentiful in our universe? If only we could find some efficient way to store and transport!
Hydrogen gas takes up about 40 times as much room as petrol, and as a liquid it needs to be kept very cold, resulting in high pressure tanks. To go a single mile takes 20 gallons of hydrogen given existing modes of storage (like carbon nanotubes or metal hydrides).
Apparently, chicken feathers could lead the way!
Chicken feathers are made up of a natural protein called keratin. This forms hard, hollow tubes which when heated creates cross-links. This in turn strengthens the structure, becomes more porous, and increases the surface area. These carbonized feather-tubes can hold as much, if not more than the much-more expensive carbon nanotubes or metal hydrides.
Cost-wise, where a 20 gallon nanotube tank would cost upwards of $5.5 million, a similar sized metal hydride tank will cost around $30,000. The team that worked on this idea estimates that a 75 gallon tank full of hydrogen and carbonized chicken feathers could travel about 300 miles, something they hope to improve on.
Well, we cannot go about farming chickens to pluck their feathers for our fuel. Perhaps our material scientists could develop synthetic feathers?
Hydrogen gas takes up about 40 times as much room as petrol, and as a liquid it needs to be kept very cold, resulting in high pressure tanks. To go a single mile takes 20 gallons of hydrogen given existing modes of storage (like carbon nanotubes or metal hydrides).
Apparently, chicken feathers could lead the way!
Chicken feathers are made up of a natural protein called keratin. This forms hard, hollow tubes which when heated creates cross-links. This in turn strengthens the structure, becomes more porous, and increases the surface area. These carbonized feather-tubes can hold as much, if not more than the much-more expensive carbon nanotubes or metal hydrides.
Cost-wise, where a 20 gallon nanotube tank would cost upwards of $5.5 million, a similar sized metal hydride tank will cost around $30,000. The team that worked on this idea estimates that a 75 gallon tank full of hydrogen and carbonized chicken feathers could travel about 300 miles, something they hope to improve on.
Well, we cannot go about farming chickens to pluck their feathers for our fuel. Perhaps our material scientists could develop synthetic feathers?
New materials with interesting properties are throwing up amazing possibilities. Like a washing machine that works with one cup of water!
An environmentally friendly washing machine has been developed by the University of Leeds, Britain. The project team claims that this clean and green machine will just need a cup of water to wash one batch of clothes. It uses 90 percent less water and 30 percent less energy and will be commercially available soon.
Here the work of water is done by tiny reusable nylon polymer beads. These plastic beads attract and absorb dirt under humid conditions. These beads are reusable. One can reuse them up to a hundred times.
The beads have a crystalline structure. This structure makes the surface of beads with an electrical charge that attracts dirt. When the beads are heated in humid conditions they lose their crystalline structure and acquire an amorphous structure. Now the dirt is drawn into the core of the bead where it remains locked in place.
When so little water is used and the warm beads help dry the laundry, less tumble drying is needed. Hence less energy and finally a lower carbon footprint.
Could material science be the new magic box?
Star power
Fossil fuel was abundant once upon a time. Not anymore. The search is on for a new source of energy which is clean and abundant.
Some argue that nuclear power could be the answer. Nuclear is the best technology available, they say, for producing reliable, carbon-free electricity at base-load scale. Critics insist that nuclear power will indeed help us reduce CO2 emissions, but only at a high cost and to a very limited extent.
Leaving that argument aside, the next question is how abundant is the fuel, and what about the waste? Terrestrial Uranium found in the earth’s crust, if used at current rates will last for 100 years and if nuclear were the sole energy powering earthlings, it will last 15 years. But there exists an ‘inexhaustible’ supply in seawater which could eventually be tapped and provide energy for all for 1000s of years, claim some!
As to waste, all the waste generated to date will hardly fill a single football stadium, say the proponents. Anyway, advanced nuclear fuel recycling technologies are being developed which reduce the volume, heat and toxicity of used fuel and also recover the unused energy that remains in the fuel.
Now, the laser facility at Livermore lab in California is all set to begin its experiments with nuclear truth. Using very high laser energy, they plan to make hydrogen fuse in a reaction similar to what happens in stars. The small amount of hydrogen pellet will reach a temperature of 100 million °C and a density 100 times that of lead, which is enough to start a fusion reaction.
While the output is ten times greater than the energy of the lasers, the aim is to multiply it further so that the energy spent in creating the lasers is discounted. For this, the scientists are toying with the idea of fusing this experiment with fission (what happens in our nuclear reactors.) The stream of neutrons from the fusion can not only extract more energy out of the fission fuel (normally only 1 percent of its energy is used!) but also decrease the waste substantially.
Laser focus, containment process, sustainable fusion, etc are technical hurdles but the scientists are focused!
What do you think? Will star power be the future of energy?
Some argue that nuclear power could be the answer. Nuclear is the best technology available, they say, for producing reliable, carbon-free electricity at base-load scale. Critics insist that nuclear power will indeed help us reduce CO2 emissions, but only at a high cost and to a very limited extent.
Leaving that argument aside, the next question is how abundant is the fuel, and what about the waste? Terrestrial Uranium found in the earth’s crust, if used at current rates will last for 100 years and if nuclear were the sole energy powering earthlings, it will last 15 years. But there exists an ‘inexhaustible’ supply in seawater which could eventually be tapped and provide energy for all for 1000s of years, claim some!
As to waste, all the waste generated to date will hardly fill a single football stadium, say the proponents. Anyway, advanced nuclear fuel recycling technologies are being developed which reduce the volume, heat and toxicity of used fuel and also recover the unused energy that remains in the fuel.
Now, the laser facility at Livermore lab in California is all set to begin its experiments with nuclear truth. Using very high laser energy, they plan to make hydrogen fuse in a reaction similar to what happens in stars. The small amount of hydrogen pellet will reach a temperature of 100 million °C and a density 100 times that of lead, which is enough to start a fusion reaction.
While the output is ten times greater than the energy of the lasers, the aim is to multiply it further so that the energy spent in creating the lasers is discounted. For this, the scientists are toying with the idea of fusing this experiment with fission (what happens in our nuclear reactors.) The stream of neutrons from the fusion can not only extract more energy out of the fission fuel (normally only 1 percent of its energy is used!) but also decrease the waste substantially.
Laser focus, containment process, sustainable fusion, etc are technical hurdles but the scientists are focused!
What do you think? Will star power be the future of energy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
