Wave energy is a large, widespread renewable resource that is environmentally benign and readily scalable. In some locations — the northwestern coasts of the United States, the western coast of Scotland, and the southern tips of South America, Africa and Australia, for example — a wave-absorbing device could theoretically generate 100 to 200 megawatts of electricity per kilometer of coastline. But designing a wave-capture system that can deal with the harsh, corrosive seawater environment, handle hourly, daily and seasonal variations in wave intensity, and continue to operate safely in stormy weather is difficult.

Chiang Mei, the Ford Professor of Engineering in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, has been a believer in wave energy since the late 1970s. After the recent oil-price spike, there has been renewed interest in harnessing the energy in ocean waves.

To help engineers design such devices, Professor Mei and his colleagues developed numerical simulations that can predict wave forces on a given device and the motion of the device that will result. The simulations guide design decisions that will maximize energy capture and provide data to experts looking for efficient ways to convert the captured mechanical energy to electrical energy.

The Portuguese plan is to integrate the OWC plant into the head of a new breakwater at the mouth of the Douro River in Porto, a large city in northern Portugal. Ultimately, the installation will include three OWCs that together will generate 750 kilowatts — roughly enough to power 750 homes. As a bonus, the plant’s absorption of wave energy at the breakwater head will calm the waters in the area and reduce local erosion.

The challenge is to design a device that resonates and thus operates efficiently at a broad spectrum of wave frequencies — and an unexpected finding from the MIT analysis provides a means of achieving that effect. The key is the compressibility of the air inside the OWC chamber. That compressibility cannot be changed, but its impact on the elevation of the water can be — simply by changing the size of the OWC chamber. The simulations showed that using a large chamber causes resonance to occur at a wider range of wavelengths, so more of the energy in a given wave can be captured. “We found that we could optimize the efficiency of the OWC by making use of the compressibility of air — something that is not intuitively obvious,” Mei says. “It’s very exciting.”

He is currently working with other graduate students on wave power absorbers on coastlines of different geometries and on how to extract wave power from an array of many absorbers.

Mei continues to be enthusiastic about wave energy, but he is not unrealistic in his expectations. Although costs have been falling in recent years, wave energy is unlikely to be commercially viable for a long time — perhaps several decades. Nevertheless, Mei is adamant that more attention should be given to this renewable source of energy, and he would like to see a team of MIT experts in different fields — from energy capture and conversion to transmission and distribution — working collaboratively toward making large-scale wave energy a reality.

“Given the future of conventional energy sources, we need lots of research on all kinds of alternative energy,” he says. “Right now, wind energy and solar energy are in the spotlight because they’ve been developed for a longer time. With wave energy, the potential is large, but the engineering science is relatively young. We need to do more research.”

This article is adapted from a longer version that appeared in the autumn 2008 issue of Energy Futures, the newsletter of the MIT Energy Initiative.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081216114102.htm

Jacobson has conducted the first quantitative, scientific evaluation of the proposed, major, energy-related solutions by assessing not only their potential for delivering energy for electricity and vehicles, but also their impacts on global warming, human health, energy security, water supply, space requirements, wildlife, water pollution, reliability and sustainability. His findings indicate that the options that are getting the most attention are between 25 to 1,000 times more polluting than the best available options.

Energy and vehicle options, from best to worst, according to Jacobson’s calculations:

Best to worst electric power sources:

1. wind power
2. concentrated solar power (CSP)
3. geothermal power
4. tidal power
5. solar photovoltaics (PV)
6. wave power
7. hydroelectric power
8. a tie between nuclear power and coal with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

Best to worst vehicle options:

1. Wind-BEVs (battery electric vehicles)
2. wind-HFCVs (hydrogen fuel cell vehicles)
3. CSP-BEVs
4. geothermal-BEVs
5. tidal-BEVs
6. solar PV-BEVs
7. Wave-BEVs
8. hydroelectric-BEVs
9. a tie between nuclear-BEVs and coal-CCS-BEVs
10. coal-CCS-BEVs (tied with nuclear-BEVs)
11. corn-E85
12. cellulosic-E85
    

Original Article http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081210171908.htm

Adapted from materials provided by Stanford University..

Here in New England we expect anywhere from 75 to 120 inches of snow each year, and it needs to be removed from driveways and sidewalks.  In true American style, we have built some monster snowblowers, to do the heavy lifting for us.  Gas powered, noisy, newspaper eating,  propellors throwing the snow 30 feet in the air.  Fun, yes. Green, no.

Since I couldn’t find a nice battery operated snowblower, I had to resort to looking at manual alternatives, and I found it.  The Wovel.  Yes, the Wovel.

Other than strange looks from my neighbors, which I am already used to, I expect to be able to clear the snow in about the same time as the snow beast.

I am actually excited about the first snow fall.

I will keep you up to date on how it works.

www.wovel.com

American Clean Power ?

Please stop talking about Clean Coal as some kind of solution for energy independence and/or global warming issues.  It can not do either of these.  Let’s use some common sense.  Coal to replace gasoline ?  Coal to replace home heating oil?  We could build more coal fired electricity generating plants, but that does not reduce our dependency on foreign oil for the other two needs.

The picture used on the left comes from the ACCCE, a new group funded by Coal and Energy companies.  They are in the process of spending millions of dollars on ad campaigns to tell you

1.) Coal generates %50 of our electricity 2.) Coal is cleaner and can be even cleaner with investment in technology.  They run ads on TV, they have a web site http://www.americaspower.org/ Thanks for Sharing!

Clean coal !  Please.  Is there such a thing as clean coal ? It does seem peculiar to me that both Presidential candidates highlight Clean Coal, some oil drilling and nuclear plants (McCain, not Obama), for our short term energy solutions.  Other technologies are always mentioned as an afterthought, oh, yeah, “some of that Solar and Wind stuff too”. One characteristic of the commonly mentioned technologies is they exist (not clean coal), and they are backed by large existing corporate and union interests. I am sure that is just a coincidence.

Clean Coal is NOT ready for prime time.  The more we try to make old solutions work, the more money, time and energy we take away from building RENEWABLE solutions.  What is renewable about Coal, even if it was Clean.  Nothing.  It is currently plentiful so let’s use it, is the logic.  Talk about clinging to beliefs.

The same reasons many conservatives knock newer renewable energy sources, such as ‘it is not ready’, ‘it will not scale’, ‘it is to expensive’, ‘it is unproven technology’…. All apply to clean coal.

The three technologies currently being researched and mostly in a pilot phase are;

Clean it, Filter it, and Capture it.

‘IT’ is nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide and of course your everyday mercury and other metals.

Clean it, consists of a bath for the coal prior to using.  It removes much of the sulfur, and some of nitrous oxide, BUT, it leaves a nice slurry of waste water that goes somewhere…oh yeah, in the ground, in a river, in the environment.  It does nothing to reduce carbon dioxide.

Filter it, means catalytic converter type filtering on the smokestake, or new oxygen purification systems where they cook the pollutants in a bath of oxygen.  This second approach is more effective but expensive.

Capture it, means Carbon Sequestration.  Even Al Gore talked about this during his powerpoint theater.  Is it just me, or does capturing the carbon dioxide and pumping it into the ground or better yet into active oil reserves make any sense ?  What a stupid idea.

I want to believe technology can solve most problems, and maybe it can reduce emissions so that Burning Coal produces NO pollutents.  But until that comes closer to reality, just shut up, and focus on alternative energies that actually work NOW and are clean.

The earth absorbs almost 50% of all solar energy and remains a nearly constant temperature of 50°F to 70°F depending on geographic location. Working with an underground loop system, a geothermal unit utilizes this constant temperature to exchange energy between your home and the earth as needed for heating and cooling.

In winter, water circulating inside a sealed loop absorbs heat from the earth and carries it to the unit. Here it is compressed to a higher temperature and sent as warm air to your indoor system for distribution throughout your home.

In the summer, the system reverses and expels heat from your home to the cooler earth via the loop system. This heat exchange process is not only natural, but is a truly ingenious and highly efficient way to create a comfortable climate in your home.

Horizontal Loops are installed in areas where the soil conditions allow for economical excavation. Taking up more land area than any other loop type, they are used where space permits. Trenches are normally 5 feet deep. Normally, several hundred feet of trench is required.

Vertical Loops
Vertical Loops are used extensively where land area is limited. A pair of pipes with a special U-Bend assembly at the bottom are inserted into a bore hole that averages between 150 to 250 feet in depth per ton of equipment.

Some cost comparisons;

UPDATE #2

The problem part was the handle unit, which I replaced fairly easily once I received it from Neuton. I do appreciate that the machine is pretty simple. Not much to it, battery, handle, one circuit board to connect all switches etc, and the blade.

I finally used it this weekend on my 1/3 of an acre and it work quite well. No issues with ability to cut the grass, which was fairly long. I used the bagger and it worked fine, although it is smaller than a normal bagger, which meant I had to empty it more. It did not clog up with grass at any point.

I was impressed with the cut. I don’t know if I had a dull blade on my other mower or this mower does something different but the clippings were short and small and the grass looks more even. Overall I was pleased with the results of the new mower. It certainly was quieter, and yes I did have neighbors stopping by to make comments. They all mentioned how light it looked (it is), and how quiet it was.

UPDATE

I finally received the new lawnmower, setup was easy, charging the battery was as expected. I was excited to use it for the first cut of the year, I was sure the neighbors would be curious and come to see the new gadget. Unfortunately, once the unit was setup, it didn’t start. After relooking at all the instructions, having my daughter reread the instructions (Dad is not known for his patience in reading those stupid things), it still would not start.

I got on the phone with Tech support, who determined it was a problem with my handle, which has the switches to activate the mower inside. They will be sending me a new handle. They were responsive and helpful but I have to drag out the old, loud, mower for now. Hopefully, I can get this going.

UPDATE END

My next investment is a battery powered lawnmower from a company in Vermont, called Neuton Power Equipment. I am awaiting arrival of the 19″ mower. This is a new model, most to date, have been smaller in width, 16″ and under powered. This makes it more work to mow the lawn, more passes across the lawn, even more frequent cutting because it can not handle the longer grass. I hope this model can fill the bill.

http://www.neutonpower.com/

Some intersting comparisons from their site between my current lawn mower and this unit

Fact: A gas mower spews 87 lbs. of the greenhouse gas CO2, and 54 lbs. of other pollutants into your air every year.

Fact: Over 17 million gallons of gas are spilled each year refueling lawn and garden equipment – more petroleum than was spilled by the Exxon Valdez.

Fact: Gas-powered mowers send over 1,800 times the hydrocarbons into the atmosphere when compared to the environmentally-sound choice of battery-powered mowers.

Well over 5 million of these machines are still sold in the U.S. every year.

But these machines have barely evolved in over half a century, and in today’s world that’s really behind the times. According to the EPA, gas mowers are reponsible for nearly 5% of our nation’s total air pollution. Over 800 million gallons of gasoline are used mowing our nation’s lawns every year. And if you operate one for more than 15 minutes, experts advise you to wear hearing protection.

When you mow with the Battery-Powered Neuton Mower, you are helping to:

• Eliminate accidental fuel spillage (a major contaminate to our underground water tables)

• Eliminate pollutants and carbon emissions (mowing 1 hour with a gas mower produces the equivalent pollution as driving a car 50 miles)

• Eliminate ear-damaging noise (gas mowers can damage your hearing and the peace & quiet of your neighborhood!)

I am focused mostly on the carbon emission reduction but the noise reduction will be an added benefit.

I will update you later on how this works out.

Article below:

However, a researcher at the University of Missouri-Columbia discovered that the development of a plug-in fuel cell hybrid, with as little as 20 miles of range from rechargeable hydrogen, could cut the amount of gasoline consumed in the United States by more than 50 percent. In addition, this technology could be mass produced in the next five years.

“About 47 percent of all miles put on vehicles in a day are within the first 20 miles of travel,” said Galen Suppes, associate professor of chemical engineering at MU. “Furthermore, about 50 percent of the vehicles travel 20 miles or less per day, and this 20 mile distance is usually in inner-city travel where fuel economy for conventional internal combustion engines is poor and emissions have their greatest adverse affects.”

The plug-in hybrid is a modified version of the hybrid vehicle, which uses electric motors and battery packs to improve fuel efficiency. The plug-in contains a secondary power source, larger than the standard hybrid, which can be recharged using electricity while parked at home. Suppes says that by replacing vehicular fuel consumption with electricity, there will be a drop in fuel emissions and less demand for gasoline. If the vehicles were charged at night, according to Suppes, they would not add to the burden on the nation’s electrical power grid.

The fuel cell hybrid provides an additional degree of freedom with the plug-in option, Suppes found. The electricity could be used to recharge batteries or to hydrolyze water to hydrogen for use with the fuel cell. In the hydrogen storage option, fuel cells are used to generate hydrogen and oxygen which are stored in compressed tanks. This configuration, Suppes says, can reduce the amount of secondary source battery storage since pure hydrogen can power the fuel cells.

“At less than $1,000 in incremental costs to today’s standard hybrid vehicle, this is a good option today and a great option for tomorrow’s fuel cell hybrid vehicles,” Suppes said. “The plug-in fuel cell hybrid is a great transition technology toward a hydrogen infrastructure.”

Suppes’ research on the plug-in fuel cell hybrid was recently published in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. He and his colleague, Truman Storvick, professor emeritus of chemical engineering at MU, recently developed an online book, “Energy Disclosed: Abundant Resources and Unused Technology,” which can be viewed at http://www.missouri.edu/~suppesg/book.htm.

Adapted from materials provided by University Of Missouri-Columbia.