Green Options » efficiency

China’s Second Pebble Bed Reactor Steam Plant; World’s Third Commercial HTGR

Rod Adams — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:49:34 +0000

There is some excitement in the nuclear focused blog world about “The World’s First Commercial High Temperature Nuclear Reactor” based partly on a recent article in Power Engineering by Jana Miller titled “Powering Up A Growing Nation”. This project in Shandong Province will be a unique plant whose reactor heat source is two containers full of spherical fuel elements, each one of which is about the size of a billiard ball.

I am a bit reluctant to call this plant a “first”, but I can get just as excited about the third, 10th or 100th plant in a progressive series of improved plants that should number 1000 reactors or more.

The plant, designated as HTR-PM, will be a 200 MWe pebble bed reactor heated steam plant with two reactors, each with a single steam generator (boiler) feeding a single turbine. The plant will be built in Rongchen City on a site large enough to host series of perhaps 10-12 similar plants. In that area of China, there are hundreds of older coal fired power plants generating 50-300 MWe each.

The HTR-PM is a carefully watched project that uses technology old enough to be new again. The concept was introduced in the late 1940s by Farrington Daniels who suggested the idea of combining uranium with graphite, which is a high temperature substance that also moderates neutrons, into small, discrete units that could be piled into a simple, shielded container.

This concept, known as the Daniels’ Pile, was a bit before its time. The material science available in the late 1940s could not provide the tight, vapor-proof coatings needed to ensure that all fission by-products remained sealed in the pebbles in all core conditions. That problem was addressed and overcome by the German project known as the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Versuchsreaktor (AVR) run in Julich from 1959-1988.

The AVR started operating in 1961, provided power to the grid in 1967 and was shut down after many years of testing and fuel developmental improvements in 1988.

The first commercial high temperature reactors

The AVR did not operate in isolation; during the same time there was a high temperature gas cooled reactor, built by Gulf General Atomics (now just General Atomics) and operated in the US at Fort St. Vrain. That HTGR was based on fuel in a different form, but it used fuel particles surrounded by layers of graphite and silicon carbide to provide the capability of operating at a significantly higher temperature and thermal efficiency than the conventional light water reactors.

I had the opportunity to visit General Atomics in 1994, before they decommissioned the fuel manufacturing facility that produced the Ft. St. Vrain fuel, and they gave me the pebble that you see here as a keep sake. It has been on my desk ever since.

The German group operating the AVR also built a commercial unit - Thorium High Temperature Reactor (THTR) - using fuel pebbles where some pebbles contained uranium-235 and others contained thorium-232. This fuel combination intrigued the designers because thorium is about 3-4 times as abundant as uranium, but it needs to be exposed to neutrons in a reactor before it can be used as fuel.

Unfortunately, though they were both commercial reactors, neither the Ft. St. Vrain HTGR nor the THTR operated for very long and neither led to any immediate successors. Good ideas, however, often incubate in the minds of problem solvers that see all of the potential and determine ways to solve the problems for another try.

China’s New High Temperature Reactors (HTR)

In 2000, the AVR rose up like a Phoenix in a new location at Tsinghua University with a new name - HTR-10. The Chinese had recognized the potential of the design and purchased essentially all of the makings including technical drawings, machinery, and consulting engineering services from the German owners. In January 2003, the HTR-10 began critical operations and testing. I have a number of friends and colleagues who have visited the facility and have been impressed. You can have a similar experience by watching a video produced by the Australian Broadcasting System titled Nuclear China.

There are many things about pebble bed reactors that fascinate me, but one of them is the fact that they can be configured to be able to withstand a complete loss of cooling without causing any core damage. As long as each reactor unit produces less than 400 MW of thermal energy, operators can turn off the cooling circulators and walk away knowing that the plant will heat up a bit, shut itself down, and never exceed a temperature at which any fuel damage will occur. Now that is a hot idea whose time has come!

The HTR-PM is capable of providing very high quality steam, identical to the steam produced in the most efficient coal fired power plants. In fact, Jim Holm has suggested that we could short cut the lengthy nuclear plant construction process by replacing boilers in existing steam plants with high temperature pebble beds.

It is one hell of a way to help solve the world’s most pressing energy challenge - how do we replace the low cost heat that coal provides to enable our modern economy without creating emissions that may overheat our planet?

Photo credits HTR-10 Schematic and simulated pebble fuel element from Rod Adams archives under creative commons.

75% of Greens OK with Nuclear Power
e2 energy: “Coal & Nuclear: Problem or Solution?”
Power Plant Efficiency Hasn’t Improved Since 1957
EIA Predicts 50% Increase in World Energy Consumption by 2030

Low Cost Gas Engine Innovation Doubles Fuel Economy

Nick Chambers — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:15:02 +0000

Revetec, a little known company from the Gold Coast region of Australia, may be on to something huge: they’ve created an engine that is 50% smaller, 50% lighter, has 50% lower emissions and is cheaper to manufacture than a conventional internal combustion engine of the same horsepower. Oh yeah, did I mention that it doubles the fuel economy too.

What that means is a car like the 2007 Toyota Yaris, which is rated at 40 mpg on the highway, would get 80 mpg with a Revetec engine.

This isn’t some hoax… They have a prototype which has been attached to an actual vehicle and independently tested to substantiate their claims.

In personal communication with Mr. Brad Howell-Smith, the Chairman, Inventor and CAD Designer for Revetec, he says “road tests have estimated that [the engine] uses around 50% less fuel than a conventional engine” and if it were converted to run on diesel, that performance gain could be much higher.

Also, because the engine delivers higher torque, and can perform and operate well at much lower rpm’s than a conventional one, the noise levels are lower.

To illustrate how serious he is, Mr. Howell-Smith said that since 2001 his company has been in touch with the US Military Head of R&D for the Southern Hemisphere on a “regular basis” for the purpose of developing one of their engines for light aircraft.

The current prototype engine, the X4v2, is what Revetec calls a “controlled combustion engine.” The meat of the engine comprises two counter rotating multilobate cams, which are acted upon by two pairs of diametrically opposed pistons which are rigidly interlinked by connecting rods.

If that sounds like complete gibberish to you, you’re not alone. Which is why I included an animation of the process to the left. A more simplified animation of the general motion of an engine of this sort is also included below.

Mr. Howell-Smith said that “if [the engine] uses 50% less fuel given that it has the same top end as a conventional engine, emissions would be reduced by 50% if the bottom end was utilized.”

What does all that stuff about “bottom end” and “top end” mean? The X4v2 has a huge amount of torque over a much larger range of rpm’s than a conventional internal combustion engine.

If a person were to drive a vehicle fitted with this engine in a non-aggressive fashion and keep the rpm’s at the “bottom end” (meaning no “jack-rabbit” starts) they could expect to see a 50% reduction in emissions.

Alternatively, according to Mr. Howell-Smith, a person could see a 30% reduction in fuel use and a 30% reduction in emissions if they used the full acceleration power of the X4v2 all the time. This would provide a 20% increase in acceleration capabilities.

We could debate about whether or not the internal combustion engine has a place in the future of transportation or whether it’s going to be all-electric or fuel cell or whatever… but in the meantime, Revetec has a product that could revolutionize the the transportation industry now, and provide a much needed large reduction in fuel consumption and emissions.

Just imagine a bunch of 80 mpg Toyota Yarises (Yarisi??) running around all over the place. A little scary, I know, but… an 80 mpg conventional automobile? I must be dreaming, wake me up before I get too excited.

Posts Related to Engines and Fuel Economy:

Image Credits: Revetec

The Illusion of MPG: Is It Really A True Measure of Your Car’s Mileage?

Max Lindberg — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 19:09:59 +0000

All these years, I’ve been doing the simple math of dividing the number of gallons used over a given number of miles driven, to determine how my car is doing on gas mileage.

Now come two professors from Duke University who say that may not be the accurate way to determine how efficient your car really is.

Clean Alternatives to Everyday Machines: Introduction

Joe Mohr — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:13:12 +0000

It started with a long discussion betweeen my wife and me. We each thought it’d be fun to get a scooter, but worried that, for us–a 1 car, 2 bike family–we would actually be doing more environmental damage by getting a scooter. Meaning, unlike many who get a scooter to use instead of their car (wise choice), we’d end up using our scooter instead of our bikes (un-wise choice). Being our primary mode of transport, the bikes would likely fall victim to the newer, sexier, faster scooter.

This got me on the thought process that I wished more people would first give a bike a try for their short trips, instead of viewing the scooter as their only alternative to combat gas prices. Of course it’s more work–but more work can be more rewarding. Which got me to thinking that there are plenty of tools that have traded elbow grease for electricity–yet we have benefitted little. Which turned me on to this mini-series…

Just as John Henry fought the steam hammer to show that human power cannot be undone by the industrial revolution. I am hoping to open a few eyes to the alternatives that are possible when we replace one of our everyday machines with the same machine sans motor/electricity/etc.
In the interest of full disclosure John Henry did beat the steam hammer but he also dropped dead in the process.
That said, I will be realistic with my comparisons–I don’t want anybody to drop dead of exhaustion. I’m sure I’ll find, in some cases, the modern invention to be more beneficial to the manual powered version it replaced.

I am of the same mindset as Wendell Berry, when he said:

a new contraption should be adopted only if it is cheaper, smaller, and locally made; uses less energy; does not disrupt anything good that already exists (including family and community relationships); does not infringe on the rights of other species (plants and animals alike); and does not harm the interests of the next seven generations…

That is the premise of this blog–we at Cleantechnica point out such “contraptions”. However, in the case of progress–when we’ve gone too far–it is often best to kick it old-technica. Because, in many cases the cleanest solutions are the oldest.
So, beginning next Tuesday (and lasting roughly 1 month) I will give an unbiased comparison as I weigh the pros and cons of popular machines most people use, with their human powered counterparts.
Stay tuned for the first match-up:
June 24th, 2008–The Motorized Lawnmower vs. The Push Reel Mower!!!

image credits: Postal Museum and Amazon.com

Low Impact Living: 10 Ways to Cut Home Energy Consumption

Low Impact Living — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:56:28 +0000

Editor’s note: Our friends at Low Impact Living point out 10 ways you can save energy this summer. This post was originally published on June 10th, 2008.

The heat of summer is coming, and that means many of us are about to crank up the AC, make an extra batch of ice, and generally burn energy like it’s our job. But we need all need to continue to try to conserve as much energy as possible to conserve resources and slow the march of global warming. And we get to save money at the same time–woo hoo to that!

Here are the ten things we can all do at home to cut our energy consumption. We start out nice and easy, then ramp up to some extra-credit methods at the end of the list for you Climate Crusaders.

1. Resist the urge to live in a refrigerator.

78 degrees is plenty cool in the house. Turn down the AC and get a programmable thermostat so you’re only cooling the house when you really need to.

2. Air dry your dishes and clothes.

The dryer and dish washer use a lot of energy– and the air does the drying job just as well. See some great clothes-drying racks here.

3. Take shorter showers and do not take baths.

Hot water heating is one of the major uses of energy in any home. Showers are the way to go– and keep ‘em short. Baths use much more water and heat than do baths (unless you’re taking 30 minute showers!).

4. Make sure you have energy-efficient lighting throughout your home.

Everyone has heard about compact fluorescent lights by now– but are you up to date on LED lights? Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) have come a long way, baby, and they are often 10 times more efficient than compact fluorescents.

5. Ditch the beer fridge.

It’s amazing how many homes have two refrigerators. Please do not use more than one fridge. And if you have an old model, get a newer Energy Star model.

6. Use ceiling fans rather than AC.

They are much more energy-efficient and you can get very reasonably priced Energy Star models.

7. Get solar screens for your windows.

These screens cut 75% of the heat coming through your windows, but don’t impact your visibility. They are really great energy savers. See them here.

8. Plant trees!

Placing deciduous trees on the South side of your home is a great way to block summer heat, but keep the sun shining on your home in the winter when you need the warmth.

9. Spend one night each week in candlelight.

It’s romantic, fun and inspires new conversation. If you’ve got kids, how about turning off the TV one night and playing a board game by candlelight? Clue would be particularly spooky!

10. Use a solar oven for some cooking.

They really work! You don’t want that hot oven on in your house anyway. You can either buy a solar oven, or you can learn to make one yourself. It’s another fun summer activity to do with your kids.

** #11: For the truly hard core, here’s a great tip I learned in Africa.

If you don’t have or don’t use AC, at night you can wet a scarf or towel or sheet and lay it on your chest. The evaporative cooling effect will really do the trick for you. Sleep tight!

Photo Credit: m.gifford’s photostream via Flicker, Under Creative Commons License

Clean Tech of the Week: Wash Clothes Without Water

Michelle Bennett — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:00:00 +0000

Not exactly washing without water, but with less than 2% of a normal washing machine. That’s only 1 cup of water for those sweaty gym clothes, grubby kid-wear, and foul socks.

Washing with soap and water has been THE WAY to clean most clothes for so long, it’s hard to imagine reducing H2O by 98%. What this technology lacks in sexy bells and whistles, it gains in implications. Billions of gallons of clean water could be conserved every year simply by adopting this dry cleaning technology. Less water also means less drying, which can add energy savings to those with energy-hungry clothes dryers.

The process uses plastic granules, which tumble with your laundry and a little water and detergent. The plastic absorbs the dirt or grit and can be reused for up to six months.

“A range of tests, carried out according to worldwide industry protocols to prove the technology performs to the high standards expected in the cleaning industry, show the process can remove virtually all types of everyday stains as effectively as existing processes whilst leaving clothes as fresh as normal washing. In addition, the clothes emerge from the process almost dry, reducing the need for tumble-dryers.” (Source)

The company bent on developing this technology is called Xeros, which started out of the UK’s University of Leeds School of Design. Professor Stephen Burkinshaw is the founder of Xeros, and hopes to use £500,000 in funding to bring a product to market as soon as 2009.

Dry cleaning companies have already shown interest in the technology, especially in areas with growing concerns over solvents involved in some dry cleaning techniques. Let’s hope this technology is affordable and spreads like wildfire.

Image via GoodCleanTech.com

Turbine Engine: No Pistons, No Lube, 30% Better Fuel Economy

Nick Chambers — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:58:03 +0000

There are more than 5,000,000 heavy duty trucks running up and down US highways each day. Every one of those trucks gets an average of 7 mpg, carries upwards of 200-300 gallons of diesel, and spews out potentially harmful emissions.

Like it or not, we depend on them to bring us our food, fuel, and products for everyday living. It’s a connection that most of us often forget about, only remembering it long enough to curse them as they slow us down on the highway.

It’s also an industry that has recently been hit hard by soaring fuel prices, and now, with the average price of diesel in the US at $4.70/gallon and climbing, it’s sure to get worse.

Needless to say, there’s a rising cacophony of voices within the trucking industry clamoring for relief. Most of this noise currently comes in the form of wanting a break in fuel prices, but really that’s just a temporary fix. Any solution with sticking power would have to offer both economic and environmental benefit — you know, win-win.

Enter Turbine Truck Engines. The company has developed an engine for heavy duty trucks called the Detonation Cycle Gas Turbine (DCGT). Key features of this engine technology include:

Uses over 30% less fuel than current heavy duty engines
30%+ fewer emissions including nitrogen oxide (NO, NO₂, N₂O₂) and carbon monoxide (CO)
Operates on all fuels and mixtures of fuels: biofuels, hydrocarbon fuels, hydrogen and synthetic
Has few moving parts, requiring much less maintenance
Has no pistons or valves, and uses no lube oil, filters or pump
Is air cooled and lightweight (less than 2 lbs. per hp)

The company has been aggressively seeking investors recently and last year won the prestigious Frost and Sullivan Award for Technology Innovation.

Currently Turbine Truck Engines holds several patents and has a few prototypes under its belt. When (and if) their technology finally reaches the market, the combined savings on maintenance and fuel, as well as environmental benefits, could make this engine extremely popular with truck drivers and trucking companies worldwide.

What do you think? Is it worthwhile to invest in this type of technology, or should we move past fuel altogether and focus on other things such as our rail infrastructure for movement of goods? Is that even possible? Are big rigs a permanent feature of our society? Is there any way to run them entirely on electricity?

Post Related to Engines and Fuel Economy:

Image Credit: Turbine Truck Engines

Korea Shows Home Energy Smarts

Gavin Hudson — Wed, 28 May 2008 19:01:23 +0000

What would a country would look like if almost nobody had an electric clothes dryer? You might imagine a a landscape of colorful underwear flapping in the wind to dry. Or maybe people would be strangely content wearing damp clothes.

In six months of living in South Korea, any sign of clothes dryers has eluded me. So bring on the airing undies and the soggy bottoms, right? Well, despite having no — or at least relatively few — clothes dryers, Koreans are both perfectly dry and dignified, with seldom so much as a scrap of clothing hung to dry in view of the neighbors.

The idea might seem a little strange in the United States, but air drying clothes as they do in Korea is environmentally wise, economically smart, and practical too.

How much energy do clothes dryers use?

The average clothes dryer uses between 1.5 and 5 kilowatts, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. After the home water heater, that’s more than any other common household appliance. To get an idea of what that means, a dryer with poor energy efficiency uses more than a…

refrigerator
microwave
flat screen TV
ceiling fan
desktop computer and monitor
radio
36 inch TV
water bed
laptop
coffee maker
and a small aquarium

… combined! And that’s assuming that all of the above items are at the bottom of the energy efficiency range. To use more energy with a single device, you’d have to plug in a personal underwater treadmill. ($15,000. No joke, they sell them.)

Is it practical to air dry clothes?

Before you say that your house is too small for a drying rack, I can promise that the average Korean home is much smaller (with no garage) and fits a drying rack just fine. An area with a window works best. Most Koreans keep their clothes drying racks in small, windowed indoor patios, which are common features of Korean houses.

Now, if you don’t happen have a charming Italian patio in the countryside with a clothes line, never fear. Air drying clothes can still be for you. For about $10, you can get a natural wood clothes drying rack, which even folds up for storage when you’re not using it.

For some samples, take a look at Bed, Bath and Beyond or Linens ‘n Things.

Underwater Wind Turbines? bioWAVE System Designed to Create Energy from Ocean Currents

Joe Mohr — Tue, 27 May 2008 03:06:30 +0000

Picture a kelp bed on the ocean floor swaying in the current.
Done?
Now picture an underwater field of bioWave turbines (pictured to your left) doing the same. But, unlike the kelp, supplying one half megawatt of electricity. (In kelp’s defense, it does provide oxygen, food, and a place for the elusive leafy sea dragon to hide.) Using habitat inspired and environmentally friendly design (biomimicry) the team at BioPower Systems have designed, and are now testing, the bioWAVE and bioSTREAM devices. Devices that sway in tune with the oceans currents while producing clean, renewable energy. The Australian company has also focused in minimizing the environmental impact of each device as not to upset the ocean’s many delicate ecosystems. Or, as their website puts it:

These systems will reside beneath the ocean surface, out of view, and in harmony with the living creatures that inspired their design.

For a National Geographic video of the company and their device click here.

To view a demo of the bioWAVE click here.

To view a demo of the bioSTREAM click here.

I look forward to hearing about the progress of the company and it’s devices. I’m pretty positive “she’ll be apples” (Australian for, “everything will turn out well”).
Check back for updates.

…Since the tide is powered by the moon, can this source of energy be dubbed

Lunar energy?

Picture credit: BioPower Systems

Solar Thermal Islands: Cool Concept or Pipe Dream?

Michelle Bennett — Mon, 26 May 2008 13:22:34 +0000

I ran across this article at The Oil Drum and thought it was too tasty to pass up. It describes a new design to help concentrated solar power (CSP) increase efficiency and reduce cost.

Here’s the problem: solar thermal collectors focus the sun’s heat onto a clear tube of fluid (see: Intro to Solar Thermal). The collectors generate the most energy when the sun’s rays are parallel with the tube of fluid. Since the sun moves across the sky throughout the days and seasons, it only reaches this “sweet spot” certain hours each day. But, if the solar collectors could move to track the sun, their power output could increase dramatically. Keep in mind that CSP is one of the most efficient forms of solar power.

Other solar technologies already track the sun through the sky, so why not CPS? The simple answer is in the clear fluid tubes: one long tube is mounted over a row of collectors, fixing the collectors into a straight line. This design reduces cost and increases efficiency. It also limits which direction the collectors can move. They can’t tilt left-to-right towards the sun, for example, because of the rigidity of their construction.

Dr. Thomas Hinderling of CSEM (Centre Suisse d’Electronique et de Microtechnique SA) suggests that instead of moving each collector (an expensive feat), why not move a platform beneath the concentrated solar farm? That way, in theory, all of the collectors would simultaneously generate the maximum possible amount of electricity, and you would utilize existing and inexpensive technology. Everyone wins! But to make it possible, you have to build a solar island.

Wouldn’t it be expensive to build an island? If something went wrong, you would endanger the entire installation. CSEM has a solution. They propose constructing a large round platform (5 km!) on an airtight frame, and filling the enclosed space with gas, effectively floating the bulk of the weight on air. If you’re having trouble visualizing that (I know I did), think of it this way: they want to build a fancy air mattress to support the platform. Using gas ensures an equal distribution of weight across the entire structure - assuming you don’t spring a leak like my air mattress. By controlling the pressure of the gas, you could build a flat or slightly convex surface and mount the solar collectors accordingly. Anyone who doubts the power of pressurized gas should watch Jaws or perhaps Jumangi (for a slightly scientific explanation).

In water, you would attach the platform to a floating ring and program motors to spin it in the desired direction. This style of solar collector doesn’t require a great degree of precision so no expensive equipment required. On land you would use the same technology, but you would build a moat to float the circumference of the platform. Water or oil in the moat would reduce the amount of energy required to spin it. (I propose a circular rail system that it could be fueled by the steam or electricity generated by the CSP. I’m not an engineer; perhaps that solution is too expensive?)

As concepts go, this one is certainly big, but a number of problems must be overcome to make it a reality. One potential problem could be high winds. Could air moving over a flat membrane produce enough lift to cause damage? In the desert, where CSP works best, there’s a lot of dust and sand. In the ocean you must contend with salt water and rough seas. How big must your platform be before it can withstand a hurricane?

Another concern central to renewable energy development is transmission lines. If you build these platforms in the ocean, as this article suggests, how will you transfer the heat or generated electricity to land?

Despite technical difficulties, the promises of this concept are tempting enough to draw in investment. A pilot project is under construction in Ras al Khaimah, a member state of the United Arab Emirates(UAE), to work out the details. (See picture, taken May 2008) If this technology proves feasible, it will be one more weapon against increasing renewable energy demands. Hopefully these platforms will be scalable so that the cost of the platform decreases as its size increases. For details and some rudimentary calculations, see the original article.

The Department of Energy

DIY Solar Thermal Water Heater: Treehugger

Mega Solar Thermal Projects

Solar Thermal Housing in Canada

Power Towers: Solar Thermal Power at night

A Thin-Film Solar Panel Installation

Michelle Bennett — Sat, 24 May 2008 15:11:37 +0000

Many people envision solar power as rigid silicon panels mounted on a roof. With thin film solar cells, you’re more likely to not see them, or even know they’re there. This article is about a real-life thin film solar project.

Not many bloggers are able to witness the technologies we research and write about. It’s one thing to be able to ~~buy~~ afford a cool “green” gadget (usually not very green), but another to see the many forms of solar, wind, geothermal, etc., which are always changing and developing around the world. So when my employer decided to go solar, you might imagine my excitement.

At the moment I work for Magco Inc., a Tecta America company. Tecta is a national commercial roofing corporation that can install green roofs, solar lighting, and solar panels alongside a variety of traditional roofing systems. This solar project is pretty straight forward: our building has a big, flat roof on top of a hill without any shade. You’d have trouble finding a sunnier spot for solar panels.

I was double delighted when I heard that they ordered thin-film solar! Naturally inquiring minds wanted to know: why and what kind?

Magco bought their solar from Uni-Solar, which produces triple-junction laminate panels. That means they laminate the photovoltaic chemicals onto a thin sheet of metal in three layers; each layer reacts to a different range of light. They also laminate a sealant on the panel to protect it from the elements. The benefit of this system is that it reacts better to low or indirect light. Think cloudy days and the hours around dusk and dawn, a. Uni-Solar’s panels operate around 12% efficiency, but they claim to out-perform other forms of PV solar in indirect light, which means they could produce more electricity in certain real-world conditions (cloudy days). The laminate production method also decreases cost because expensive silicon and mounting racks are not required.

In fact, these thin-film solar panels are glued straight onto the roof. (See picture.)

Magco chose these panels for another important reason: no roof penetrations. If you mount racks on your roof, you have to fasten them down. That means punching holes in the roof, which can void your warranty and even damage your roof if it’s not done right. Some solar systems, even silicon panels, have found ways to avoid these problems, and anyone looking into solar should ask about the integrity of their existing roof. Another bonus for Magco and thin-film solar was weight: these solar panels roll out like carpet and don’t weigh as much as silicon. That means Magco wouldn’t need to add any structural support. It does snow here, so weight is an important factor!

What about the electrical aspect? Special runners help connect and protect wires between panels and represent the only mounted equipment in the system. The wires eventually find their way to a big inverter inside the building, which feeds the electricity to us. A 2-way power meter can then feed any excess electricity back into the grid. Simple, right? Well, for a project this big and complicated you’d definitely want to hire some professionals. If you mix up which-wires-go-where, you could make some very expensive mistakes or just rob yourself of some of your solar power.

What if you and your neighbors want to go solar but can’t afford it? Bulk your order and get it done at the same time. Combining your orders will reduce costs in man-hours and equipment (think crane rentals). Naturally you can also get a better deal on the panels themselves if you buy in larger quantity.

Images Courtesy of Patrick Bollinger.

Smart Power Strips the Garlic of Vampire Electronics

Michelle Bennett — Sat, 03 May 2008 13:15:31 +0000

I cover a lot of upcoming or future technology, but it’s time to step into the present and aim for the past. Today we’re going to look at a technology available right now that can make some wanton energy waste history. It’s a surge protector that stakes the hearts of vampire electronics without hassling you, the sleeping victim.

Vampire appliances are pretty much anything you can plug in that still sucks energy when it’s supposedly turned off. Some are pretty obvious - the clocks on your microwave or VCR/DVD player burn all day, everyday. We know they’re not “off” because we cans see their LEDs glow. But other electronics, from your television to your cell phone charger also draw power when they’re plugged in but not in use. Check out a handy graph from Good Magazine. Some gadgets are notorious, like your plasma TV. Estimates claim that 5% or more of U.S. energy usage is insidiously wasted by “stand-by mode” or certain misleading “off” buttons. A whopping 5% may not sound like much, but it adds up to about $1 Billion dollars per year - and energy prices will probably continue to rise.

Be honest - how many times would you go around the house unplugging everything before it got old? Smart greenies have been switching off their surge protectors, but it’s easy to forget while watching your favorite late-night TV show or blogging at 4am. So what can we do about these metal-toothed Nosferatu in our midst? How about a surge protector that turns off all your appliances for you?

Smart Power Strips are easy to use: One “master” outlet on the strip controls six other “slave” outlets. When the power usage of the master outlet decreases (by a large enough amount), it automatically turns off the slave outlets. If you plug your “master electronic” like a TV or computer into the master outlet, all your periphery appliances - printers, speakers, Playstation, etc. - are automatically turned off. Oh wait, you have a Tivo and you don’t want all of your peripheries to turn off? No worries, the Smart Power Strip has three “constant” outlets that behave like normal, so you won’t miss your favorite shows. And of course, when you turn the “master” back on, the “slaves” will buzz to life. So instead of housing a legion of thirsty vampires, you can sleep soundly with a gadget that puts your electronics on a diet. For the best deal, check out Amazon.com.

This is not the first or only such gadget on the market. Your choices range from super-smart peripherals to wall monitors to watt-counting surge protectors. You can even use a low cost, old-fashioned timer. For your energy efficient computer needs, you can download power-saving freeware. These applications extend beyond home use too; businesses are jumping on the band wagon to reduce their energy costs and boost the bottom line. These steps could provide big savings for offices with lots of computers and copy machines.

EDIT: Thanks to Tim Hurst for pointing out a neat video via Ecoscraps

(Nosferatu image courtesy of LikeTelevision.com)

(Smart Power Strip image courtesy of MetaEfficient.com)

Can Improved Spark Plugs Boost Both Fuel Economy and Performance?

Philip Proefrock — Fri, 02 May 2008 14:09:53 +0000

As has happened before, with gas prices continuing to climb, the demand for improved fuel economy will increase as well, and all manner of improvements and upgrades that promise to help get better mileage will be touted. Some offer real benefits; others are pure snake oil.

An improvement that offers both improved mileage and increased horsepower seems counterintuitive at first. After all, the tradeoff that hybrids and other economy vehicles offer seem to be one of reduced horsepower and acceleration in exchange for improved fuel economy. So how can you have both?

The Pulse Plug is a replacement spark plug that incorporates a capacitor (an “integrated circuit” according to the manufacturer) to increase the power of the spark that ignites the fuel. The manufacturer claims increases of 6 to 8 percent (which works out to about an extra 3 MPG for a Toyota Prius). While it would be misleading to draw a direct connection between the power of the spark and the power from the engine, after all, it’s not the spark that is propelling the vehicle, any more than the temperature of the match determines how hot the barbecue will be. But could a stronger spark provide increased power through a more complete combustion of the fuel? If so, then, at least theoretically, less fuel would be needed for the same level of power - more complete combustion would be cleaner (less unburned hydrocarbons through the tail pipe as well as less fuel used overall).

I’m not prepared to offer judgment about this one. The test results from several vehicles are varied, and in some vehicles, the improved performance was fairly slight. The testing procedure being reported is the manufacturer’s own method, rather than an independent third-party test, which always adds a degree of skepticism to any results. In general, the results seemed to show greater fuel economy improvement with smaller engines (VW Jetta GLI, 1.8L Turbo; Honda S2000, 2.2L; and 2005 Toyota Prius) while larger engines (Jeep Wranger Umlimited, 3.8L; Pontiac TransAm, 5.7L) had smaller improvement figures.

Improved mileage and fuel economy comes through numerous small improvements. I’d be more suspicious of anything that claimed a double digit improvement or more, unless it was clearly a radical modification. Even with the manufacturer’s limited testing, there are a range of results, and it may be that, for some vehicles, significant improvements such as this could be achieved. But I would want more wide range testing information before I invested $100 (or more) in a new set of spark plugs.

via: o2 Michigan mailing list