The Global Warming debate is getting heated.

Al Gore has been criticized for using too much electricity and destroying the local environment with zinc mining. Gore predicts 20 foot rises in sea levels that appear to be contradicted by 20 inch estimates in the International Panel of Climate Change’s (IPCC) Forth report. Liberals are accusing Big Oil of conspiracies to falsify data on CO2 emissions impact on climate change. NASA is planning to launch mini mirrors into orbit to block some of the sunlight to balance the effect of green house gases. So what’s the deal?

The deal is that there are logical paths to follow. There is no way the billions of humans can occupy a planet without having some negative impact. So yes, all the little human polluters need to tighten up! There are things you can do to save money on energy. These things that Al Gore mention: Florescent light bulbs, programmable thermostats, hot water heater blankets, solar outdoor lighting, and changing your air conditioner filters regularly are all great suggestions. If you add hot water heater timers, weather stripping, lighter colored roofing material, high-efficiency or water source heat pump air conditioning (where the water can be properly utilized), attic ventilation, ceiling fans, window tinting, insulated glass windows, proper attic insulation and passive solar applications (deciduous trees on the south side of your home for one); you are beginning to get the point I was paid to make for years.

The regular Earthling can do plenty to help save themselves energy, that just happens to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save money. Irregardless of your stance on global warming, these are simple economically sound things you can do. A friend of mine told me that if I replace one incandescent light bulb, I could help stop global warming. I only have two incandescent bulbs and they are both 12 volt. Every light I use is florescent.

What can municipalities do to help? Check out the urban heat island effect. For some odd reason, the IPCC does not include the urban heat island effect in their mankind’s contributions to global warming. It is considered insignificant in their report. Yet, Al Gore lists things like florescent light bulbs, etc. as helpful parts of the solution. Urban heat island effect is this; dark pavement, dark home roofs, densely packed buildings and fewer trees create much warmer urban areas. The ten plus degree warmer air temperatures in the heat islands reduce the efficiency of air conditioning units, reduce the efficiency of motor vehicles and increase air conditioning demand. Reducing heat island effect is like installing a heck of a lot of florescent bulbs!

Local governments can help reduce the heat island effect with reduced heat absorption pavements, encouraged tree planting, construction code changes to address reflective/less heat absorbing roofing, green roof initiatives and encouraging green development. The green development not only reduces the heat island effect, it has created some beautiful areas in revitalization projects.

The federal government has been doing more than they have been given credit for. Dozens of relatively small government grants have help develop a large number of new technologies and products in alternate energy production and storage. Many types of alternate energy generation are just becoming economically feasible. Wind power generation is now viable. Five mega watt wind mills are online instead of the 50 kilowatt toys available ten to twenty years ago. Solar cells are becoming more efficient and less expensive. Fuel cells are lighter, cost much less and are more efficient. Hydrogen fuel storage technology has improved incredibly in the last four years. Farmers risked their own money years ago to start alcohol distilleries for alternate energy. All of these were aided by federal programs, grants and tax incentives.

If you are new to the global warming band wagon, just how much have you done over the past thirty years to help. Yep! For thirty years scientists and entrepreneurs have been working to develop more energy efficient devices and alternate energy applications related to reducing global warming. A great deal of these scientists and entrepreneurs gained inspiration from NASA. Some gained inspiration from military contracts. Some worked for years on their own until finally tax incentives and rising gas costs drove investors to their door.

If you really want to do something that might help global warming, start thinking higher efficiency, alternate energy, alternate fuels and new technology. If you don’t buy the alternatives, change will never happen. In the next two years, real alternatives that offer real performance will be available from the auto industry. The “not in my backyard mentality” related to wind farms and other green energy options needs to be reconsidered. New and some older green energy options are in the works for your community. Cleaner, transitional, uses of fossil fuels need to be used on the road to fossil fuel independence, accept that fact. That ten year old coal fired power plant has not paid for itself yet. Don’t shut it down. Upgrade the scrubbers if need be and increase the carbon retention, and call it transitional. Because that is what it is.

The ball will soon be in your court consumer. This is a capitalistic society. Products that help solve some of the problem are available. New automotive products that are the real deal, are coming soon to a show room near you. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, ask not what your country can do for global warming, ask instead, what you can do for your world to stop global warming.

What Everyone Should Know About Associated Content

Charlotte tells about what it means to have the opportunity to enjoy your passion and be paid for the effort. It is a great example of why people join and stay at Associated Content.



read more | digg story

How to Build a Better Battery

Battery power cars have been built for the general public but failed to make a big hit. Limited range and long recharge times seem to be reason for the poor sales. Battery powered forklifts were fairly well received in the warehousing industry where the need for pollution free power is much more critical. Still the limited run time and long charging times limited the electric equipment lift equipment growth. Propane powered equipment took over a larger share of the market.

What was needed for the electric powered equipment was a better battery system. Batteries that would extend the operating time, decrease charge time and increase the life span of the batteries. Many different materials and chemical combinations have been tried with limited success. Until a year or so ago.

This new battery system occupies the same foot print as the large lead acid batteries originally design for the forklifts. It triples the runtime over lead acid, reduces recharge time to under four minutes, virtually eliminates hazardous waste storage of lead acid batteries and maintains a constant output voltage over the entire discharge cycle.

Now that the battery manufacturer has proven its performance in warehouse applications, original equipment manufacturers (OEM) are ordering the new batteries. This may signal not only the growth of electric warehouse equipment but rebirth of the electric car.

The Hydricity ® power cells use space age technology redesigned to reduce cost and weight. The NASA proven technology is the hydrogen fuel cell. Energy stored for the fuel cell is in the form of hydrogen not electrons. The hydrogen is converted to electricity through the fuel cell providing the equipment with constant power while the cell is fueled. Waste products of the conversion process is water vapor and heat.

The Manufacturer, General Hydrogen announced its first OEM order in May of 2006 from Cat ® Lift Trucks of Houston, Texas. Sales figures for hydrogen fuel cell model lifts were not available at the time of this article.

The Ballard Mark 9 fuel cell, the heart of the new battery replacement system, has yet to meet its goal of 2300 hours of reliable operation. The Mark 9 SSL ™ ratings range from 4.4 KW to 19.3 KW with weights under 35 pounds. The total Hydricity 2 unit weights just over 2000 pounds including capacitors, fuel storage, cooling system, controls and cabinet.

The fuel cell manufacturer predicts that by the second quarter of 2007 they will meet that goal. The company has meet cost goals of less than $65 per KW, 1500W per liter size and cold start performance for its automotive application model 902. After meeting the 2300 hour minimum life the Ballard 902 models will be available for automotive use. The 902 model can be configured for 85KW for light autos to 300KW for heavy vehicles.

Both the Mark 9 and the model 902 are based on the light weight PEM (Polymer Electrolytic Membrane or Proton Exchange Membrane) fuel cell technology. Using this design, the model 902 weighs in at 212 pounds. The Mark 9 19.3 KW weighs under 35 pounds.

At 65$ per KW the typical compact car power plant would be $5525.00 which is considered competitive for automotive power plants. Note this price is for the fuel cell only and does not included electric drives, fuel storage and other required components. The 2300 hours life translates roughly to 70,000 miles of reliable service before overhaul (mileage estimates vary greatly with use).

2008 Presidential Candidates: Energy Issues

Ideas come from both sides of the aisle, some good and some bad. In this day of sound bites, the real impact of a politician’s idea requires a little research or assumptions. I don’t like to assume. It is early in the race, very early, so this is at best a preliminary review of what some of the candidates or potential candidates are saying about alternate energy policies.

Senator John Kerry made this remark following the 2007 State of the Union address:

“Once again the President only paid lip service to a meaningful energy agenda that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. His record speaks for itself – we’re more dependent on foreign oil than ever before. Tonight the President failed to embrace bold policies to break our oil dependence. The President says the nation should reduce U.S. gas usage by 20 percent over the next 10 years, but a goal without a roadmap for getting there is useless. The President should have included more funding for hybrids and battery technology.”

This was taken from Senator Barack Obama’s campaign website:

Senator Obama introduced legislation with Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) to require 2 billion gallons of alternative diesels, such as bio-diesel, to be produced domestically by 2015. Obama also sponsored legislation requiring oil companies, that made at least $1 billion in profits in the first quarter of 2006 to invest at least 1 percent of the their total reported first quarter 2006 profits into installing E85 pumps.

Senator Obama worked with Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) to introduce the American Fuels Act that would increase the domestic production, distribution, and use of biofuels, including expanded manufacture of flexible fuel vehicles, tax credits for biofuels, and a nationwide distribution infrastructure.

This was taken from Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign website:

Ending our country's dependence on foreign oil will take real leadership. Hillary proposed a simple idea to help end the cycle of dependence: put some of the oil industry's windfall profits into a fund that would help develop practical new sources of renewable energy.


Senator Kerry mentions that without a roadmap the 20 in 10 is useless. Well it seems with a roadmap the “Energy Act of 1992” was useless. That act called for gasoline use in the US to be reduced by 10 percent by year 2000 and 30 percent by 2010. So what happened? The American consumer must have had the map upside down.

The FreedomCar initiative set less stringent goals. It basically provided federal funds to develop hydrogen power vehicle technologies. One of the problems with hydrogen is that it is hard to store enough hydrogen to get a comparable vehicle range. A company called Quantum Industries took a matching funds grant from the US and developed a composite material hydrogen fuel tank that significantly increases the range of hydrogen powered vehicles. Ford Motor Company built a prototype hydrogen fuel cell Explorer that uses a 700 bar hydrogen tank storing 10 kilograms of hydrogen and has a range of 350 miles. That would be a SUV getting the equivalent of 35 MPG burning a green alternate fuel. That fuel tank pressure by the way was the target pressure of the Quantum Industries research.

Senator Obama’s thoughts summarized are; tax the oil companies 1 percent to build a e85 infrastructure and use more clean coal.

As E85 availability and E85 rated vehicles on the road increases, the oil companies are going to put in E85 pumps. This is one of those basic supply and demand things. There are also alternate energy tax incentives in place that the big oil companies are already using. One flaw in the recommended bio-diesel mandate would be agricultural commodities costs. Enabling the already growing grass roots bio-fuel movement instead of mandating progress is normally much more effective. Alternate energy tax incentives are an example of enabling.

The use of clean coal also sounds great. A federally funded pilot project called “FutureGen” is developing clean coal use, increasing the efficiency of the coal fired powered plant by producing hydrogen as a by-product and working on methods of carbon sequestering. Coal is still a fossil fuel. Using coal as a step to energy independence is fine, but other methods not using fossil fuel would be better.

Senator Clinton’s statement was the vaguest of the three, but potentially the most profound. She chose a poor wording using the word “take” in the real world (not used on her website) referring to the windfall profits of the oil companies. If she had used a phrase like, “Not taxing up to 15% of windfall profits, provided those profits are directed towards alternate fuel research and infrastructure development” She would have had a major win on her hands.

Her not specifically directing the oil company monies toward any one alternate energy technology was a stroke of brilliance. Alternate energy technologies are emerging and allowing flexibility in investments increases the probability of success.

Many feel that little progress towards energy independence is being made. Slow and steady progress is being made. Slow and steady wins the race some times.

Alternate Energy: Food for Thought

As of 2005, 71 percent of US electrical power generation used fossil fuel sources (per Energy Information Administration). Coal by far lead fossil fuel sources producing 50% of the total 4.05 Gigawatt hours (GW) produced. Relating back to the New Agriculture: Energy Farming article, the 60,000 5 Megawatt hours (MW) wind turbines operating at 25 percent of capacity (wind doesn’t blow all the time) would produce 75,000 MW. Representing much less than one percent of the total US electrical power output.

Clean energy resources, nuclear, hydroelectric and other renewable sources combined to produce 28 percent of the 2005 totals. Wind power was the fastest growing sector of power generation.

2005 motor gasoline usage was approximately 100,000 barrels per day or 31,500,000 gallons per day. To try to keep everything in common units, hourly gasoline use in the United States is approximately 48,000 MW. The percentage of this energy used in automobiles varies between sources as airplanes and boats use a percentage that is difficult to accurately determine. For the purpose of this article I will assume 90% usage by road vehicles. So with that assumption US road vehicles consume 43,200 MW per hour or just over one percent of our nation’s electrical power generation.

By now you are wondering, “Where the hell is he going with this”! To set priorities is my goal. Automotive internal combustion engines are inefficient and despite the huge numbers represent a small but very expensive percentage of our energy budget. Fuel cell vehicles are twice as efficient as internal combustion engines. Making fuel cell vehicles a logical initial goal in our quest for energy independence.

While agriculturally produced bio-fuels are a wonderful start for a green energy economy, the inherent inefficiency of the internal combustion engine is not addressed. With alcohol as fuel the efficiency of the auto engine is even worse. This is not to de-rate the importance of bio-fuels, just to emphasize that some 100 plus year old technologies may not be a part of our future.

Another goal of this article is to illustrate the challenges we face in reducing overall fossil fuel use in the United States. Wind power is the fastest growing alternate energy sector. While there will surely be advances in wind power technology, the current cost per KW is attractive making wind power generation a profitable enterprise.

Solar is increasing as an energy sector, but the potential of new more efficient solar panels will cause relatively slow growth. It is hard to justify spending big money on equipment in a technology sector that may cost 75% less in just a few years. An investor would be leery of placing billions into large-scale solar power plants. Again, this is not meant to devalue solar energy’s significance. There are applications were solar is cost effective.

Tidal and wave energy sources have yet to make a significant energy impact. Technological advances are making this a much more attractive sector. The potential of tidal/wave energy is greater than that of wind power.

Last but not least, nuclear energy, which provides less than twenty percent of our total electrical energy, is a proven technology. Replacing aging fossil fuel fired power plants with nuclear power is a logical decision. Increased nuclear power plant construction based on proven designs is also logical.

Stimulating interest and discussion on our rapidly changing energy future is important. All our options need to be considered and hopefully most of the readers are realizing that most alternate energy technologies will play a role. Focusing on your one favorite alternate energy is fine, but don’t sight of the goal. Moving to a fossil free future in a logical, orderly manner.

The President's 20 in 10 Inititiative

In his 2007 State of the Union address president Bush announced his 20 in 10 initiative. Meaning that the US will reduce gasoline use by 20% in ten years. The media is underplaying this initiative. An Oxford Analytical article on Forbes.com used such glowing adjectives as mild, modest and slightly. The article also mentioned safety valves in mandated vehicle fuel efficiencies legislation that congress may use if required.

Many in the media seem to forget that a president can only rally the entrepreneurial troops so to speak. Governmental mandates that are not obtainable should have safety valve to be used, but only if required to prevent economic chaos. It is doubtful that any of these safety valves will have to be used.

Economic conditions are near perfect for implementation of the 20 in 10 initiative. Oil price and availability concerns are driving alternate energy technologies and alternate energy vehicle design. Both are poised to fill the energy gaps. Because of the much greater fuel efficiency of the hydrogen fuel cell Detroit should have no problem meeting the average vehicle fuel efficiency standards mandated by the 20 in 10 initiative.

The ball though is in the American people’s court. Will those with adequate financial resources by these vehicles? What is wrong with a huge SUV that gets 35 miles per gallon using clean hydrogen fuel? The American people have to embrace the potential of the initiative rather than question the source. If political gamesmanship attempts to underplay the potential, the game players may suffer.

As the Oxford Analytical article mentioned, bio-fuels are only a part of the energy puzzle. Other options are required and will always be required. The President’s energy policies have generated interest in alternate fuel implementation and will generate more. Before the State of the Union speech Wal-Mart submitted a request for proposals for 100MW solar power systems to be designed for their stores. Perhaps a little more positive reporting could serve to stimulate more interest in our nation becoming energy independent in a much shorter time frame.

There is common ground in the goal to obtain energy independence. While many on the green side may belittle 20 in 10 is too little too late, that is not necessarily the case. Do you want to risk the energy future of this nation by perverting the message to kill the messenger?

The 20 in 10 initiative is intended to inspire entrepreneurs and investors. Focusing on the common goal and working as a determined nation to achieve that goal is the task at hand. Many in the national community need to remove their blinders and look at all the available options. They are there, they are real and with a unified effort they are obtainable. Talk to American farmers that are already branching out to wind power farms.

"Today I am pleased to announce that the United States will sponsor a $1 billion, 10-year demonstration project to create the world's first coal-based, zero-emissions electricity and hydrogen power plant..." President George W. Bush
February 27, 2003

The FutureGen initiative is to build hydrogen production using coal as the hydrogen production energy source. The process being considered in FutureGen includes carbon sequestering using various geological storage sites. Still this process does not free us from fossil fuels. Is this process needed?

The honest answer is yes. Building a hydrogen economy will take time and there is a logical progression required. Building infrastructure is a major consideration. The first true production hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCV) will be hitting the market in the next few years. Fueling stations for hydrogen are extremely limited. More sources of inexpensive hydrogen are required to build the hydrogen infrastructure.

Coal and other fossil fuels including natural gas are abundant and easily converted to hydrogen using existing technology. Cleaner, less fossil fuel dependent methods like electrolysis and waste heat driven thermolysis are advancing. Still, the efficiencies of these cleaner hydrogen production technologies require inexpensive energy for cost effective production.

The inexpensive energies for hydrogen production in the high quantities needed are on the way, but not quickly enough. Interim steps like coal source hydrogen and liquid natural gas fuel cells will help to build the hydrogen infrastructure. The key to converting to a hydrogen-based economy is economics. We can’t break the bank. Gasoline prices will still set the standard for growth in alternate fuels. So the transition has to be fiscally responsible.

Coal power plants like FutureGen serve to demonstrate and refine technologies that will be used building and supplying our hydrogen energy future. While you may not agree with FutureGen, it is a valuable step on the road to our energy future.

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/futuregen/