A California-based company has developed a solar film panel using “cutting edge photonics techniques,” that can move specific light spectra to the places they are needed most in order to increase solar panel efficiency. Using this film instead of traditional solar panel film, efficiency can reportedly be increased 300%!
Using this efficient, new technology, the cost of solar panel installations could theoretically be cut in half. By using the film panel on top, one can use significantly fewer solar cells in the production of solar panels, thereby dramatically reducing the cost per watt of electricity.
The photonics network separatea the collected sunlight into different spectrum ranges, where they can be routed to different output points at the bottom where different types of solar cells may be placed. The technology also filters out the unused solar spectrum to deliver maximum useful solar energy to the solar cell and avoid overheating.
Looks good.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
Removing the black carbon can help
Placing strict limits on a handful of common air pollutants could pay big dividends for efforts to limit climate change, improve public health and increase agricultural productivity, according to a new U.N. report. These are aerosols like black carbon, and methane and ozone. Additionally, limiting emissions of black carbon and chemicals that react with sunlight to form tropospheric ozone could prevent 2.4 million premature deaths and the loss of 1 to 4 percent of the global output of maize, rice, soybean and wheat each year, the analysis found.
Now that's a huge benefit to be ignored!
Cuts in these emissions could be made with existing technology, the report says, and would "have immediate and multiple benefits for human well-being." Possible strategies for reducing black carbon, methane and ozone include capturing methane produced by landfills and fossil fuel extraction, introducing cleaner-burning cookstoves, installing particulate filters on diesel engines and banning the practice of burning fields of agricultural waste.
Black carbon is produced by the burning of fossil fuels as well as biomass like wood and dung.
Researchers expanded the analysis to look at chemicals like methane and precursors to ozone because they are emitted by the same processes -- like biomass burning -- that produce black carbon. Like black carbon, methane and ozone are potent, even if short-lived, greenhouse gases. Black carbon, for example, lingers in the atmosphere for weeks, compared to CO2, which can last for centuries to millennia.
All three can damage human health, while ozone can lower crop yields. Meanwhile, black carbon acts in several ways to accelerate climate change. It absorbs heat from sunlight, warming the surrounding air. When particles of black carbon fall from the atmosphere on ice or snow, they hasten melting. Earlier work suggests that black carbon emissions caused half the total warming in the Arctic between 1890 and 2007.
Perhaps governments of developing nations will pay attention and do something fast about the burning of biomass in unhealthy, unhygienic cookstoves, etc.
Now that's a huge benefit to be ignored!
Cuts in these emissions could be made with existing technology, the report says, and would "have immediate and multiple benefits for human well-being." Possible strategies for reducing black carbon, methane and ozone include capturing methane produced by landfills and fossil fuel extraction, introducing cleaner-burning cookstoves, installing particulate filters on diesel engines and banning the practice of burning fields of agricultural waste.
Black carbon is produced by the burning of fossil fuels as well as biomass like wood and dung.
Researchers expanded the analysis to look at chemicals like methane and precursors to ozone because they are emitted by the same processes -- like biomass burning -- that produce black carbon. Like black carbon, methane and ozone are potent, even if short-lived, greenhouse gases. Black carbon, for example, lingers in the atmosphere for weeks, compared to CO2, which can last for centuries to millennia.
All three can damage human health, while ozone can lower crop yields. Meanwhile, black carbon acts in several ways to accelerate climate change. It absorbs heat from sunlight, warming the surrounding air. When particles of black carbon fall from the atmosphere on ice or snow, they hasten melting. Earlier work suggests that black carbon emissions caused half the total warming in the Arctic between 1890 and 2007.
Perhaps governments of developing nations will pay attention and do something fast about the burning of biomass in unhealthy, unhygienic cookstoves, etc.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Some ground realities, some predictions
There are predictions and predictions. So also optimism in bundles. But does that alone work?
Like all energy needs to be met by solar in two decades! That is what Ray Kurzweil says and he has been good with his predictions so far - he laid out the law of accelerating returns, which states that technology improves at exponential rates, and made a string of dead-on predictions about computing in the 80s.
'If you buy an iPhone today, it's twice as good as two years ago for half the cost. That is happening with solar energy -- it is doubling every two years. And it didn't start two years ago, it started 20 years ago. Every two years, we have twice as much solar energy in the world. Today, solar is still more expensive than fossil fuels, and in most situations it still needs subsidies or special circumstances, but the costs are coming down rapidly ... we are only a few years away from parity.'
'So right now it's at half a percent of the world's energy. People tend to dismiss technologies when they are half a percent of the solution. But doubling every two years means it's only eight more doublings before it meets a 100 percent of the world's energy needs. So that's 16 years. We will increase our use of electricity during that period, so add another couple of doublings: In 20 years we'll be meeting all of our energy needs with solar, based on this trend which has already been underway for 20 years.'
He is right but there are many ifs involved in this task. For one, imagine the massive task of deploying enough solar farms fast enough to render coal and natural gas plants obsolete? Next, where is the political will to take on the powerful fossil fuel lobbies? Finally, we must remember that clean energy tech breakthroughs have not been as forthcoming as those in IT sector.
Yes, we could, if only some powerful lobbies would!!
Like all energy needs to be met by solar in two decades! That is what Ray Kurzweil says and he has been good with his predictions so far - he laid out the law of accelerating returns, which states that technology improves at exponential rates, and made a string of dead-on predictions about computing in the 80s.
'If you buy an iPhone today, it's twice as good as two years ago for half the cost. That is happening with solar energy -- it is doubling every two years. And it didn't start two years ago, it started 20 years ago. Every two years, we have twice as much solar energy in the world. Today, solar is still more expensive than fossil fuels, and in most situations it still needs subsidies or special circumstances, but the costs are coming down rapidly ... we are only a few years away from parity.'
'So right now it's at half a percent of the world's energy. People tend to dismiss technologies when they are half a percent of the solution. But doubling every two years means it's only eight more doublings before it meets a 100 percent of the world's energy needs. So that's 16 years. We will increase our use of electricity during that period, so add another couple of doublings: In 20 years we'll be meeting all of our energy needs with solar, based on this trend which has already been underway for 20 years.'
He is right but there are many ifs involved in this task. For one, imagine the massive task of deploying enough solar farms fast enough to render coal and natural gas plants obsolete? Next, where is the political will to take on the powerful fossil fuel lobbies? Finally, we must remember that clean energy tech breakthroughs have not been as forthcoming as those in IT sector.
Yes, we could, if only some powerful lobbies would!!
Just 2 percent can do a miracle...
Investing just 2% of global GDP could both alleviate global poverty, set us solidly on the path away from fossil fuels, and cut our collective ecological footprint nearly in half, according to a new UNEP report.
Says Achim Steiner, 'With 2.5 billion people living on less than $2 a day and with more than two billion people being added to the global population by 2050, it is clear that we must continue to develop and grow our economies. But this development cannot come at the expense of the very life support systems on land, in the oceans or in out atmosphere that sustain our economies, and thus, the lives of each and everyone one of us.'
The report sees a Green Economy as not only relevant to more developed economies but as a key catalyst for growth and poverty eradication in developing ones too, where in some cases close to 90 per cent of the GDP of the poor is linked to nature or natural capital such as forests and freshwaters.
It cites India, where over 80 per cent of the $8 billion National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, which underwrites at least 100 days of paid work for rural households, invests in water conservation, irrigation and land development. This has generated three billion working days-worth of employment benefiting close to 60 million households. (But ask some of the grassroots activists for another story!)
Some of the suggestions it gives are to invest in support small-scale agriculture, energy efficient buildings, fisheries protection, forestry, energy efficient transportation, better waste management and recycling, low carbon energy, better water use practices. Discontinue spending 1-2% of global GDP on subsidies that lead to unsustainable environmental practices, prop up fossil fuels, pesticide use, unsustainable fishing practices.
In theory, this could well be right. But in practice, how much political will is forthcoming? That is the biggest hurdle.
Says Achim Steiner, 'With 2.5 billion people living on less than $2 a day and with more than two billion people being added to the global population by 2050, it is clear that we must continue to develop and grow our economies. But this development cannot come at the expense of the very life support systems on land, in the oceans or in out atmosphere that sustain our economies, and thus, the lives of each and everyone one of us.'
The report sees a Green Economy as not only relevant to more developed economies but as a key catalyst for growth and poverty eradication in developing ones too, where in some cases close to 90 per cent of the GDP of the poor is linked to nature or natural capital such as forests and freshwaters.
It cites India, where over 80 per cent of the $8 billion National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, which underwrites at least 100 days of paid work for rural households, invests in water conservation, irrigation and land development. This has generated three billion working days-worth of employment benefiting close to 60 million households. (But ask some of the grassroots activists for another story!)
Some of the suggestions it gives are to invest in support small-scale agriculture, energy efficient buildings, fisheries protection, forestry, energy efficient transportation, better waste management and recycling, low carbon energy, better water use practices. Discontinue spending 1-2% of global GDP on subsidies that lead to unsustainable environmental practices, prop up fossil fuels, pesticide use, unsustainable fishing practices.
In theory, this could well be right. But in practice, how much political will is forthcoming? That is the biggest hurdle.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Parched planet
Summer is not yet in but water woes have started. Not only in the poor developing world, but also in the developed world, focus is shifting to water.
In the UK, a think tank, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, has brought a report saying that low-income households are at particular risk because of new methods being introduced to increase the efficient use and distribution of water. It defines "water poverty" as when households spend 3% or more of their income on water bills.
It warns that water is becoming scarce as a result of climate change and increased consumer demand. An estimated four million households in the UK are already "water poor", according to the report, and the situation is likely to worsen, with bills predicted to rise by 5% a year for some customers. Water companies are moving away from flat-rate fees to new charging models that bill customers with steadily higher prices according to how much water they use.
A less recognised reason for the turmoil in Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Yemen, Jordan and now Iran has been rising food prices, directly linked to a growing regional water crisis. The Blue Peace report from Strategic Foresight examined long-term prospects for seven countries, including Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, the Palestinian territories and Israel. Five already suffer major structural shortages, it said, and the amount of water being taken from dwindling sources across the region cannot continue much longer. Oil is a poor substitute for water!
In this context, once again the issue is of water management and perhaps, privatisation. Will it solve the issue ro take water out of the hands of the poor?
In the UK, a think tank, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, has brought a report saying that low-income households are at particular risk because of new methods being introduced to increase the efficient use and distribution of water. It defines "water poverty" as when households spend 3% or more of their income on water bills.
It warns that water is becoming scarce as a result of climate change and increased consumer demand. An estimated four million households in the UK are already "water poor", according to the report, and the situation is likely to worsen, with bills predicted to rise by 5% a year for some customers. Water companies are moving away from flat-rate fees to new charging models that bill customers with steadily higher prices according to how much water they use.
A less recognised reason for the turmoil in Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Yemen, Jordan and now Iran has been rising food prices, directly linked to a growing regional water crisis. The Blue Peace report from Strategic Foresight examined long-term prospects for seven countries, including Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, the Palestinian territories and Israel. Five already suffer major structural shortages, it said, and the amount of water being taken from dwindling sources across the region cannot continue much longer. Oil is a poor substitute for water!
In this context, once again the issue is of water management and perhaps, privatisation. Will it solve the issue ro take water out of the hands of the poor?
Extreme weather, excess rain
A study shows clearly for the first time the human influence on the climate affects the water cycle, going beyond the bounds of typical physical responses such as warming deep ocean and sea surface temperatures or diminishing sea ice and snow cover extent. It also warns of extreme rainfall and floods as the global temperature continues to climb.
It examined daily records from more than 6,000 weather stations around the globe of rainfall, snowfall and other precipitation stretching from 1951 to 1999. In each year of that period, the team determined how extreme precipitation had been. By compiling the information from all these years and comparing it with the precipitation patterns predicted by computer models of the climate, the scientists noted a similar pattern emerging in the real-world data.
The bad news is that such record-breaking downpours, blizzards and sleet storms are likely to continue to get worse as atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise, causing global temperatures to continue to warm and making the atmosphere more and more humid.
Warmer atmospheric air means more water vapor, which is itself a greenhouse gas, exacerbating the problem. What goes up, must come down and, more and more, that water vapor is coming down in extreme precipitation events. Water vapor increases by roughly 7 percent for every degree Celsius of warming in the lowest level of the atmosphere—or, more simply put, warmer air means warmer water, which means more of it in the form of vapor and hence, more rain and floods. More of what happened in Australia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka!
It examined daily records from more than 6,000 weather stations around the globe of rainfall, snowfall and other precipitation stretching from 1951 to 1999. In each year of that period, the team determined how extreme precipitation had been. By compiling the information from all these years and comparing it with the precipitation patterns predicted by computer models of the climate, the scientists noted a similar pattern emerging in the real-world data.
The bad news is that such record-breaking downpours, blizzards and sleet storms are likely to continue to get worse as atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise, causing global temperatures to continue to warm and making the atmosphere more and more humid.
Warmer atmospheric air means more water vapor, which is itself a greenhouse gas, exacerbating the problem. What goes up, must come down and, more and more, that water vapor is coming down in extreme precipitation events. Water vapor increases by roughly 7 percent for every degree Celsius of warming in the lowest level of the atmosphere—or, more simply put, warmer air means warmer water, which means more of it in the form of vapor and hence, more rain and floods. More of what happened in Australia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka!
Thursday, February 17, 2011
LEDs in the dock
Well, they are being touted as safe, green and efficient lighting and the alternative to incandescents and fluorescents. But now, the LEDs also stand exposed, according to latest research.
The light-emitting diodes marketed as safe, environmentally preferable alternatives to traditional lightbulbs actually contain lead, arsenic and a dozen other potentially hazardous substances.
Scientists at UCI and UC Davis crunched, leached and measured the tiny, multicolored lightbulbs sold in Christmas strands; red, yellow and green traffic lights; and automobile headlights and brake lights. Low-intensity red lights contained up to eight times the amount of lead allowed under California law, but in general, high-intensity, brighter bulbs had more contaminants than lower ones. White bulbs contained the least lead, but had high levels of nickel.
Lead, arsenic and many additional metals discovered in the bulbs or their related parts have been linked in hundreds of studies to different cancers, neurological damage, kidney disease, hypertension, skin rashes and other illnesses.
The question that rises is if the LEDs were properly tested for potential environmental health impacts before being marketed as the preferred alternative to inefficient incandescent bulbs. Often a new product is marketed for its advantages vis a vis other products in the market, but perhaps it is time to start independent testings, as this case shows.
Will be interesting to hear the other side of the story, though.
The light-emitting diodes marketed as safe, environmentally preferable alternatives to traditional lightbulbs actually contain lead, arsenic and a dozen other potentially hazardous substances.
Scientists at UCI and UC Davis crunched, leached and measured the tiny, multicolored lightbulbs sold in Christmas strands; red, yellow and green traffic lights; and automobile headlights and brake lights. Low-intensity red lights contained up to eight times the amount of lead allowed under California law, but in general, high-intensity, brighter bulbs had more contaminants than lower ones. White bulbs contained the least lead, but had high levels of nickel.
Lead, arsenic and many additional metals discovered in the bulbs or their related parts have been linked in hundreds of studies to different cancers, neurological damage, kidney disease, hypertension, skin rashes and other illnesses.
The question that rises is if the LEDs were properly tested for potential environmental health impacts before being marketed as the preferred alternative to inefficient incandescent bulbs. Often a new product is marketed for its advantages vis a vis other products in the market, but perhaps it is time to start independent testings, as this case shows.
Will be interesting to hear the other side of the story, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
