Reinventing transformers

These are times of immense upheavals, not only political. Change in the way we think, change in the way we work, innovate and build. Leading this movement are researchers innovating technology. People like Alex Huang who is working to revamp aging power grids into something more like the Internet—a network that might direct energy not just from centralized power stations to consumers but from any source to any destination, by whatever route makes the most sense.

Huang, a professor of electrical engineering at North Carolina State University, is reinventing the transformers that currently reduce the voltage of the electricity distributed to neighborhoods so that it’s suitable for use in homes and offices.

Conventional transformers handle only AC power and require manual adjustment or bulky electromechanical switches to redirect energy. What he wants is a compact transformer that can handle DC as well as AC and can be electronically controlled so that it will respond almost instantaneously to fluctuations in supply and demand.

His first transformer had silicon-based components, but silicon is too unreliable for large-scale use at high voltages. So Huang has pioneered the development of transformers with semiconductors based on compounds of silicon and carbon or gallium and nitrogen, which are more reliable in high-power applications. He expects to have a test version of the silicon-carbon transformer ready in two years.

Huang’s transformers would make connecting a solar panel or electric car to the grid as simple as connecting a digital camera or printer to a computer. Isn't that what renewable dreams are made of?!

Advantage small

Large still holds sway over most folks. And large plants are part of this obsession. Well, we need large to address the kind of demand there is for power. But when you look at things close, decentralised and small seems the more sensible way.

Take solar. A decentralized solar collection scheme is far more energy efficient than a centralized one. More than 30% of our electricity is lost in transmission in our current system, and a centralized solar plant is no different than the current system in this way. A decentralized system can supply power to where it is needed directly most of the time, only using the grid to offload surplus power.

A decentralized solar system will be far more resilient to natural disasters, as there will be no single points of failure that can bring down the whole grid. A decentralized solar system utilizes unused space on rooftops and in yards to generate power, whereas a centralized system requires the development of new land, destroying habitats while generating no more power. Rooftop systems shade the structure underneath, cutting energy usage in the summer months.

A decentralized solar strategy provides market space for lots of technologies to compete directly, without the generally anti-competitive nature of big monolithic construction contracts crowding out the small players.

The secondary costs of a centralized power system, like beefed up transmission lines, large ugly transformer stations, and so on are rarely calculated into the cost of concentrating lots of megawatts in one place. All this is done away in decentralised.

Of course, there are issues of storage needed, and the associated costs. But going by the above points it would be wise to agree decentralised wins. Right?

Dust tales

It is well past Earth Day. Some of us did our bit, some forgot in the bustle of everyday life. But here is something again that reminds us how connected we all stand (and we are not speaking spiritually as Dan Brown does in The Lost Symbol!) This is the ecological web of life we are talking here.

Have a look at the picture first. Is it just another shot of our home planet? Look again. See the dust trail? Dust from the Sahara Desert – the world’s largest desert, encompassing around 8.6 million sq km – can be transported over thousands of kilometres by atmospheric convection currents. These convection currents form when warm, lighter air rises and cold, heavier air sinks.

Sandstorms are very common over the Sahara, and large concentrations of the dust can be found in the tropical Atlantic and the Caribbean. The dust contains many nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus and iron, which act as a fertiliser and stimulate the production of massive plankton blooms.

Planktons are microscopic marine plants that drift on or near the surface of the sea and are the basic food on which all other marine life depends. They contain chlorophyll pigments and are able to convert inorganic compounds, such as water, nitrogen and carbon, into complex organic materials.

With their ability to 'digest' these compounds, they remove as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as terrestrial plants. As a result, the oceans have a profound influence on climate. Since plankton influence the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, it is important to monitor and model them into calculations of future climate change.

Did you ever spare a thought to a plankton? Do you now agree they are important in the scheme of life? Did you ever realise how connected we are to the remote regions of our planet, thanks to its dynamics? Next time you swear at dust, just stop and think. Where did it come from?!

A day and more

Friday is Earth Day. To save the planet we need a billion acts of green, and hey! let us remember we are saving the planet for our sake. The planet needs no saving, we need saving from our own greed. Already damage has crossed the danger threshold, and any damage control will have to be substantial. It will need strong action from the top, but every individual can do his bit.

If governments place a market value on living trees and primary forest, or every person reduces his carbon footprint to 2 tons per year, the contribution can be immense. Imagine if even one out of ten decides to ride the bicycle to work instead of the car – you straightaway have reduced your greenhouse gas emissions from 0.85 pounds of carbon dioxide per mile for the average car, to zero!

Tree planting is something easy and calls for no sacrifice except for some responsibility. All of us can plant a seed somewhere on Earth, in homage to a life form that has sustained life on the planet. A healthy tree absorbs about 50 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, besides supplying vital oxygen.

All you need to do is write a petition to your government on some green campaign – be it against polluting coal plants or mines that destroy forests. Show governments that the public care. Buy energy efficient goods; buy local food, waste as little as you can of anything and everything. Whether saving energy, or using less water, or adopting alternative transportation, small steps taken together can make a leap.

At least for a day, why not use the Facebook to send across a green message instead of posting snapshots?! Why not encourage friends to go green? From one Earth Day, why not extend the pledge to more days? Why not make sustainable living a daily habit?

Smart grid and the hacker

Smart is the way for grids to go in future. It seems to be the inevitable way ahead given the route charted by technology. A smart grid will tell the consumer when best to switch on, also how much he has consumed already, and it will also tell the utility who and where the power is being consumed.

Fine. Sounds great. Has all the elements to get consumers to start tightening energy budgets. of course, there is some doubt about that, given the Jevons paradox which indicates that energy saved in one mode would end up more than consumed in some other usage.

But, that aside, smart grid seems to be the panacea of a time when theft and wastage rule the roost. Again, a new note of dissent has crept in. What about the hackers? What happens if they hack into the system? Who will tackel the chaos?

A year ago, an unidentified computer intruder tried to penetrate the US Lower Colorado River Authority's power generation network with 4,800 high-speed log-in attempts that originated at an Internet address in China, according to a grid official's confidential memo that was leaked to the media.

The smart grid increases the complexity of the system. There is more technology, and more networks highly interconnected to share information. You've increased the overall attack surface. You're deploying technology that is no longer in a building you control, and you are deploying it over the air, right up to the home.

When the technology is deployed at such a grand scale, it's a real challenge to manage and maintain security. The smart grid will make technology management a core part of what any utility is.

What is the confidence we have that our technology will not end up creating more troubles than solutions? Any ideas?

Sweet sugar is cool too

Come summer and who does not love to gulp a glass of sugarcane juice? Turns out sugarcane is not only cool for the human body but also for the planet!

Scientists from the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology have found that sugarcane has a double benefit. (In the Brazilian context where this is a crop being pursued for its fuel side) expansion of the crop in areas previously occupied by other Brazilian crops cools the local climate. It does so by reflecting sunlight back into space and by lowering the temperature of the surrounding air as the plants "exhale" cooler water.

Shifting from natural vegetation to crops or pasture results in local warming because the plants give off less beneficial water. But the bamboo-like sugarcane is more reflective and gives off more water -- much like the natural vegetation. Hence, using sugarcane to power vehicles reduces carbon emissions, while growing it lowers the local air temperature!

The scientists found that converting from natural vegetation to crop/pasture on average warmed the cerrado by 2.79 °F (1.55 °C), but that subsequent conversion to sugarcane, on average, cooled the surrounding air by 1.67 °F (0.93°C). The researchers emphasize that the beneficial effects are contingent on the fact sugarcane is grown on areas previously occupied by crops or pastureland, and not in areas converted from natural vegetation.

So Brazilians and the rest of the world can have their sugar and fuel their vehicles too!

Blacker than coal!

In the desperate search for new sources of energy, natural gas from shale has sent many enterprises drilling away new areas, and not only in the US. But is this any cleaner source than coal?

Researchers at Cornell University are raising alarms over the expected increase in use of natural gas from shale deposits. They argue that replacing coal and gasoline with natural-gas alternatives could worsen, rather than improve, the impact of greenhouse gases. The greenhouse-gas footprint of shale gas over a 20-year period is at least 20 percent higher than that of coal and "perhaps more than twice as great," they say in a study published online in the journal Climatic Change.

To extract natural gas from shale, drillers hydraulically fracture the rock by injecting a cocktail of water and chemicals into a horizontally drilled well at high pressures. A significant amount of gas also mixes with the water-chemical mix and escapes into the atmosphere when the fluid returns to the surface. The drilling out of well plugs that separate fracking stages also results in temporary emission releases, giving shale gas a "significantly larger" greenhouse-gas footprint than conventional natural gas.

When burned to generate electricity, natural gas emits roughly half as much carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour as coal. But over its life cycle, natural gas could result in far more greenhouse-gas emissions, whether through intentional venting, equipment leaks, or fracking. And the leaks would consist of methane, which is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Of course, as the Cornell study points out, thera are ways that drillers and pipeline operations could reduce methane emissions by up to 90 percent. But, these technologies are currently not in wide use.

Well, the hunt goes on as an energy hungry civilisation keeps at it.

Magnetic discovery

Researchers at the University of Michigan have made a discovery about the behavior of light that could change solar technology forever. Stephen Rand, a professor in the departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Physics and Applied Physics and William Fisher, a doctoral student in applied physics, discovered that light, when traveling at the right intensity through a material such as glass that does not conduct electricity, can create magnetic fields that are 100 million times stronger than previously thought possible.

The result is an “optical battery, which could lead to “a new kind of solar cell without semiconductors and without absorption to produce charge separation”, according to Rand.

In solar cells, the light goes into a material, gets absorbed and creates heat. Here, we expect to have a very low heat load. Instead of the light being absorbed, energy is stored in the magnetic moment. Intense magnetization can be induced by intense light and then it is ultimately capable of providing a capacitive power source.

The catch is that this occurs when you read that the light needs to be focused to 10 million watts per square centimeter to realize the effect. Sunlight isn’t this intense on its own, but new materials are being sought that would work at lower intensities.

Materials will provide the key to many cutting edge solutions of tomorrow, for sure.

Product ratings on efficiency

The UK Coalition Government has just launched a campaign to persuade the country’s consumers to buy energy efficient appliances that will save them money and the environment.

This summer, new energy efficiency labels for appliances like TVs, washing machines, dishwashers and fridge-freezers will be introduced across Europe, but UK consumers are the less likely to buy energy efficient appliances than their European neighbours.

The new mandatory European Energy Label features rainbow-coloured bars indicating the energy rating of a product, but those ratings will now include A+ and A++ for appliances that have improved their efficiency over and above the highest A rating level.

As manufacturers further improve the performance of appliances, additional A+++ categories of energy efficiency may also be introduced.

“These new energy saving ratings will help people make the right choice when out shopping for TVs and white goods by choosing those which are rated the darkest green on the labels,” said Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman, launching the campaign.

Energy labels started appearing on appliances in the mid-1990s and are now being applied to a wider number of products, including boilers and vacuum cleaners.
The European rules covering energy labelling now require that the actual amount of energy that a product uses are included in the information, with the energy performance rating shown in adverts as well as at the point of sale.

Of course, will it help unless the consumers are educated on the need to buy these appliances? What kind of incentives will attract a consumer to buy a certain product are many. Immediate savings play a bigger role often than long-term savings. At least that has been the case in India where most of these products fall in the upper cost bracket. Share your views. Would you buy an energy saving product?

Giving rights to Nature!

Bolivia is set to pass the world's first laws granting all nature equal rights to humans. The Law of Mother Earth, now agreed by politicians and grassroots social groups, redefines the country's rich mineral deposits as "blessings" and is expected to lead to radical new conservation and social measures to reduce pollution and control industry.

They include: the right to life and to exist; the right to continue vital cycles and processes free from human alteration; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to balance; the right not to be polluted; and the right to not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered.

The law, which is part of a complete restructuring of the Bolivian legal system following a change of constitution in 2009, has been heavily influenced by a resurgent indigenous Andean spiritual world view which places the environment and the earth deity known as the Pachamama at the centre of all life. Humans are considered equal to all other entities.

While this is a laudable move, the question is how effective will be the abstract rights in protecting rights of ecosystems and animals. Or how it plans to empower communities with legal powers to monitor and control polluting industries.

Nitrogen pollution up

Nitrogen pollution is costing every person in Europe up to £650 a year in damage to water, climate, health and wildlife, a study warns. Scientists behind the research said nitrogen was needed as fertiliser to help feed a growing world population – but suggested that eating less meat could reduce the amount of pollution caused by agriculture.

If you are wondering where meat eating came into the picture when talking of crops and fertilisers, well, much of the nitrogen pollution from agricultural production is linked to meat and dairy farming, as the crops needed to feed them are grown with the help of fertilisers.

Environmental impact of livestock was not limited to greenhouse gases from cows, with nitrogen used to grow crops to feed animals also having an impact. In Europe, people are currently eating 70% more meat and dairy products than they need for a healthy diet.

The report for the European Nitrogen Assessment (ENA) also suggests with 60% of costs of the nitrogen damage stemming from fossil fuels burned for energy generation and transport, more energy-efficient homes and less long-distance travel could help.
More efficient use of fertilisers in food production is also needed, the report said.

The researchers said that the cost of putting in measures to tackle the problems of nitrogen pollution would be outweighed by the financial benefits the solutions would reap.

Water rights

As the summer sun intensifies, parched earth and thirsty mouths seek water, it is once again time to ask some tough questions. Should access to clean, safe water be declared a human right?

In July 2010 the United Nations (UN) agreed to a new resolution declaring the human right to “safe and clean drinking water and sanitation”. One hundred twenty-two nations voted in favor of the resolution; 41 (primarily developed) countries abstained; and there were zero “no” votes. According to the declaration, approximately 884 million people lack access to safe drinking water.

A recent World Bank study predicted that demand for fresh water will exceed supply by some 40 percent within just two decades.

Approximately one out of every eight people does not have drinking water. In just one day, more than 200 million hours of the time used by women is spent collecting and transporting water for their homes.

The resolution itself carries no regulatory weight, but backers view it as important to raising awareness of the problem and engendering support for solutions. Governments, aid agencies and the UN must take their responsibilities seriously.
However, some developed countries—including the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand and several European nations—tried to block passage of the resolution in hopes of minimizing their future obligations.

A recent study shows urban growth rates alone leaving 993 million city residents living on less than 100 liters of water a day. (The 100-liter-per-day benchmark comes from the World Health Organization and the U.S. Agency for International Development.) The average American uses 376 liters a day.

When issues like climate change with its potential for damage could not evoke a consensus, it is perhaps naive to expect nations which do not suffer immediate water crisis to pitch in and help the poorer nations. But the UN resolution at least has raised some awareness on the issue.

What do you think? Would declaring it a human right help the situation?

Blowing foul

Here's another twist to the windy tale. Wind farms produce far less energy than previously claimed, according to a new report. Wind-energy output at wind farms metered by the UK’s National Grid was less than 10% capacity for one third of the time during the two-year study. For numerous extended periods of time all the wind turbines linked to the National Grid muster less than 20MW of energy: enough power for 6,667 households to boil their kettles for a cup of tea.

Low output also sometimes coincided with periods of peak demand. The report, supported by Scottish conservation charity the John Muir Trust, said wind "cannot be relied upon" to provide any significant level of energy generation at any defined time in the future.

It also called into question common assertions made by industry such as that wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year.

The study challenged assertions by industry and government such as that periods of widespread low wind are "infrequent". It found that the average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or fewer was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.

The study also found that at each of the four highest peak demands of 2010 wind output was low, being respectively 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity. Wind generation was below 20% of capacity for more than half the period of the study.

Well, one can contest that this is the story for Scotland alone. Really?

Investments inadequate in renewables: IEA

Global investments in renewable energy have risen dramatically over the last decade, but governments need to step up support for clean energy innovation. The IEA’s Clean Energy Progress Report, notes that countries have spent $17 billion on renewable energy and energy efficiency research during the last 10 years — less than a third of the $56 billion directed to nuclear energy research. As much as $22 billion has gone toward fossil fuel research during the same period.

Clean energy ministers, according to IEA, should provide incentives for private sector investments in energy projects, using tax credits, “innovative public/private partnerships,” and “market-creating mechanisms.”

IEA also says fossil fuel subsidies ought to be “phased out,” and governments should establish a price for carbon emissions.The IEA, meanwhile, emphasizes a need for cooperation between the public and private sectors, and for support that goes beyond tax breaks or grants. The agency urges governments to clear “non-economic barriers” for renewable energy research, development, demonstration and deployment, which can range from administrative burdens to the somewhat nebulous challenge of public acceptance and awareness.

The right combination of policies and could deliver nothing short of “a clean energy revolution,” says the IEA. For examples, the agency points to Denmark’s successful cultivation of biomass and wind since the 1980s, and to China’s leap to achieve three times the installed wind power capacity of India in just five years.

Biofuels may aggravate poverty

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons warns: Research by the World Bank indicates that the increase in biofuels production over 2004 levels would push more than 35 million additional people into absolute poverty in 2010 in developing countries.

Using statistics from the World Health Organization (WHO), Dr. Indur Goklany estimates that this would lead to at least 192,000 excess deaths per year, plus disease resulting in the loss of 6.7 million disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) per year. These exceed the estimated annual toll of 141,000 deaths and 5.4 million lost DALYs that the World Health Organization attributes to global warming.

Thus, developed world policies intended to mitigate global warming probably have increased death and disease in developing countries rather than reducing them. Goklany also notes that death and disease from poverty are a fact, whereas death and disease from global warming are hypothetical.

Most biofuels are made using food crops like corn at this time, and diverting corn to ethanol refineries not only increases the price of corn, but it also encourage farmers to plant more of it, leaving less space for other types of crops, driving up their price too.

Goes to show how connected we are as a race!

1 bn will face water shortage by 2050

Rapid urban growth and climate change will leave more than 1 billion urban dwellers with a water shortage by 2050, according to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The study shows urban growth rates alone leaving 993 million city residents living on less than 100 liters of water a day. The effects of climate change add 100 million people to that toll.

The 100-liter-per-day benchmark comes from the World Health Organization and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Both recommend it as the minimum amount for consumption in normal uses like bathing, drinking and cooking. In contrast, the average American uses 376 liters a day!

Between now and 2050, the study projects the world will add 3 billion people in cities, most of them in developing areas in India, West Africa and China. Much of this urban growth will occur in areas with seasonal water shortages. The study projects 3.1 billion people will be dealing with seasonal water shortages by 2050.

Agriculture, the world's biggest water consumer, is also one of its the biggest wasters. The report recommends improving the industry's efficiency and cites previously successful approaches. One, in South Africa, had farmers remove plantations of non-native trees that require a lot of water to survive.