Warning

 

Close
Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Cancel Confirm
AR15.COM
8/13/2007 8:55:15 AM EDT
Find it here:
discovermagazine.com/2007/aug/better-planet-nuclear-wind-power

Starts out good, but gets into some hippy whiner shit towards the end.  Remember, though, the audience it's [primarily] written for.

Better Planet: Nuke Power is Earth's Friend

It’s time to replace coal power with wind and, yes, nuclear.

by William Sweet

ExxonMobil has thrown in the towel, terminating its campaign to convince the public that global warming is a hoax concocted by some pointy-headed intellectuals. All three major Democratic candidates for president, and some of the top Republican contenders as well, have promised serious action. Leading members of Congress have introduced a half dozen bills that would impose some kind of carbon regulation, and even the president now concedes that climate change is important.

Using coal to make electricity accounts for about a third of America’s carbon emissions. As a result, tackling emissions from coal-fired power plants represents our best opportunity to make sharp reductions in greenhouse gases.

Fortunately, we already have the technology to do that. Unfortunately, right now the United States is addicted to coal, a cheap, abundant power source. Burning coal produces more than half the country’s electricity, despite its immense human and environmental costs. Particulates and other air pollutants from coal-fired power plants cause somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 premature deaths in the United States each year. Fifty tons of mercury—one-third of all domestic mercury emissions—are pumped into the atmosphere annually from coal plants. In addition, the extraction of coal, from West Virginia to Wyoming, devastates the physical environment, and its processing and combustion produce gigantic volumes of waste.

For the last decade, coal-burning utilities have been fighting a rearguard action, resisting costly antipollution measures required by environmental legislation. At the same time, they have been holding out the prospect of “clean coal”—in which carbon is captured and stored as coal is burned. But clean-coal technologies have yet to be demonstrated on a large scale commercially, and by the admission of even the president’s own climate-technology task force, clean coal doesn’t have any prospect of making a big dent in the climate problem in the next 15 to 20 years.

By comparison, nuclear and wind power are proven technologies that emit no carbon and whose environmental risks and costs are thoroughly understood and which can make an immediate difference for the better.

The first thing to be appreciated about reactors in the United States is that they are essentially immune to the type of accident that occurred at Chernobyl in April 1986. Put simply, because of fundamental design differences, U.S. reactors cannot experience a sudden and drastic power surge, as happened at Chernobyl’s Unit Number 4, causing it to explode and catch fire. In addition, the reliability of U.S. nuclear plants has been constantly improving. In 1980, American nuclear power plants were generating electricity only 56 percent of the time because they frequently needed special maintenance or repair. By 2004, reactor performance had improved to the point of generating electricity over 90 percent of the time.

Our regulatory regime, which was enormously strengthened in the wake of the 1979 Three Mile Island accident (during which no one was hurt, by the way), is indisputably much better than the Soviet system, which bred endemic incompetence. Management of U.S. nuclear power plants has improved dramatically since Three Mile Island, and security has been tightened significantly since 9/11 (though more remains to be done). By comparison with other tempting terrorist targets like petrochemical complexes, reactors are well fortified.

What about the problem of storing radioactive waste? It is overrated from an engineering standpoint and pales in comparison with the challenges associated with the permanent sequestration of immense quantities of carbon, as required by clean-coal systems. Though the wastes from nuclear power plants are highly toxic, their physical quantity is surprisingly small—barely more than 2,000 tons a year in the United States. The amount of carbon dioxide emitted by our coal plants? Nearly 2 billion tons.

Let us say it plainly: today coal-fired power plants routinely kill tens of thousands of people in the United States each year by way of lung cancer, bronchitis and other ailments; the U.S. nuclear economy kills virtually no one in a normal year.

Perhaps the most serious concern about increasing our reliance on nuclear power is whether it might lead to an international proliferation of atomic bombs. Contrary to a stubborn myth, however, countries do not decide to build nuclear weapons because they happen to get nuclear reactors first; they acquire nuclear reactors because they want to build nuclear weapons. This was true of France and China in the 1950s, of Israel and India in the ’60s and ’70s, and it’s true of Korea and Iran today. Does anybody honestly think that whether Tehran or Pyongyang produces atomic bombs depends on how many reactors the United States decides to build in the next 10 to 20 years?

Ultimately, the replacement of old, highly polluting coal-fired power plants by nuclear reactors is essentially no different from deciding, after putting sentimental considerations aside, to replace your inexpensive and reliable—but obsolete—1983 Olds Omega with a 2007 Toyota Camry or BMW 3 Series sedan.

All that said, it’s important to be clear about nuclear energy’s limits. It’s likely that the construction of at least one new nuclear power plant will be initiated by the end of this year, ending a two-decade drought in new nuclear plant construction. But by its own estimates, the U.S. nuclear industry can handle only about two new nuclear reactor projects annually at its present-day capacity.

Obviously, given these limits, a lot of new wind generation, conservation, and improvements in energy use will also be needed. Wind is especially important because, despite the hopes of many, solar power just isn’t going to cut it on a large scale in the foreseeable future. Right now, on a dollar per megawatt basis, solar installations are six or seven times as expensive as wind.

Wind turbines already generate electricity almost as inexpensively as fossil fuels. Thanks to a two cents per kilowatt-hour production incentive from the U.S. government, they are being built at a rate that will increase the amount of wind-generated electricity by nearly three gigawatts a year. Taking into account that wind turbines produce electricity only about a third of the time, that’s roughly the equivalent of building one standard one-gigawatt nuclear power plant a year.

Currently, nuclear and wind energy (as well as clean coal) are between 25 and 75 percent more expensive than old-fashioned coal at current prices (not including all the hidden health and environmental costs of coal), and so it will take a stiff charge on coal to induce rapid replacement of obsolete plants. A tax or equivalent trading scheme that increases the cost of coal-generated electricity by, say, 50 percent would stimulate conservation and adoption of more efficient technologies throughout the economy and prompt replacement of coal by some combination of wind, nuclear, and natural gas. Proceeds from the tax or auctioned credits could (and should) be used to compensate regions and individuals most adversely affected by the higher costs, like the poor.

For the last six years, the U.S. government, with well-orchestrated support from industry, has told the American people that we can’t afford to attack global warming aggressively. That’s nonsense. We’re the world’s richest country, and we use energy about twice as extravagantly as Europe and Japan. It’s no surprise that we account for a quarter of the globe’s greenhouse-gas emissions.

What the United States needs to do is get in step with the Kyoto Protocol, both to establish its bona fides with the other advanced industrial countries and to give countries like India and China an incentive to accept mandatory carbon limits. That implies cutting U.S. carbon emissions by 25 percent as soon as possible.

The United States could do that by simply making the dirtiest and most inefficient coal plants prohibitively expensive by means of the carbon tax or trading systems mentioned above.

All we need to move decisively on carbon reduction is a different kind of political leadership at the very top. Surprisingly, it’s the muscle-bound action-movie star who runs California who has best captured the spirit of what’s needed. Last September, the day Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill committing his state to a program of sharp greenhouse-gas reductions, he told an ABC interviewer that climate change kind of “creeps up on you. And then all of a sudden it is too late to do something about it. We don’t want to go there.”
8/13/2007 5:21:47 PM EDT
[#1]
Find it here:
discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/ocean-energy

12.02.2005

Wave Energy: Can a mechanical snake that surfs the ocean squeeze enough watts from water?

by Eric Scigliano

12.02.2005 Wave EnergyCan a mechanical snake that surfs the ocean squeeze enough watts from water?by Eric Scigliano

VOLTS FROM A MECHANICAL SEA SNAKE

Pelamis is a segmented cylinder moored at both ends to the ocean floor. As a wave passes down the length of Pelamis, hinged joints on the power conversion modules allow the tubes to move up and down and side to side. The motion of the tubes relative to one another drives pumps that turn generators. The electricity flows via a cable to a shore-based grid. To access high-energy swells, Pelamis is designed for use about five miles offshore.

HOW THE MODULE CAPTURES WAVE ENERGY:  A horizontal hinge (1A) on one side of the module exploits up-and-down motion (heave). A vertical hinge (1B) on the opposite side exploits side-to-side motion (sway). The wave-induced motion forces the pistons (2) that connect the segments forward and backward through hydraulic chambers (3). The action pushes biodegradable fluid through accumulators (4) that smooth the flow and turn hydraulic motors (5). The revolutions drive generators (6), producing electricity.

The tsunami in the Indian Ocean last December that killed nearly 300,000 people and shattered the lives of millions also offered the world an indelible demonstration of how much energy a wave can carry. Geologists estimate the underwater earthquake that triggered the tsunami unleashed a force greater than all the explosives detonated in World War II. That much energy—6 trillion watt-hours—breaks on the world's coastlines every two hours or so. Capture it all and you could power 5 million American households for a year.

Offshore, even more free energy rolls in swells. Tony Trapp, managing director of Engineering Business Ltd. in England, calculates that capturing just 1 to 2 percent of global wave power—the share he considers recoverable—could supply 13 percent of the world's current demand for electricity.

The bonanza is so obvious that inventors have dreamed of harnessing ocean waves for more than two centuries. In 1799 a French father-and-son team tried to patent a giant lever attached to a floating ship, which would rock with the waves to drive shoreside pumps, mills, and saws. But steam power stole everyone's attention, and the dream languished on drawing boards. Two centuries later, oil embargoes once again spurred wave-power designs, but they passed into memory as gasoline prices slid downward. Now, as oil prices soar again, wave energy may finally be poised to deliver.


ENERGY FROM UNDULATION

Ocean Power Delivery

A Portuguese consortium backs the world's first commercial wave farm, located off the country's northern coast. The initial order is for three units of the wave-energy capture device known as Pelamis. The motion of the segmented structures will produce electricity for 1,500 households. If all goes well, the project may eventually include 40 such sea snakes.

Engineers at Ocean Power Delivery in Edinburgh, Scotland, can point to proof bobbing just off the stormy shores of Scotland's Orkney Islands. There, Ocean Power's sinuous, 450-foot-long cherry-red steel snake, called Pelamis after a sea snake, pumps 11,000 AC volts into a grid at the European Marine Energy Centre, an innovative test bed that can offer the sort of apples-to-apples performance measures of sea generators that investors and electric utilities crave.

Since its installation a little more than a year ago, Pelamis has performed so well that a Portuguese consortium, led by the renewable energy company Enersis, recently ordered three of the devices. If tests go well, the group intends to buy 30 more. Ocean Power engineers say that 40 of their sea snakes spread across 250 acres would supply enough electricity to feed as many as 20,000 households.

Pelamis's inventor, Richard Yemm—a tousled, big-boned mechanical engineer—is a lifelong sailor. His project development engineer, Andrew Scott, is an ardent surfer. Both got their sea legs in Scotland's rough, cold waters, and both have a healthy respect for the energy that waves carry. Designing a wave generator is "a very complex problem," muses Yemm, "an unusual marriage of physics and heavy-duty engineering in a dynamic environment."

The sea is indeed cruel. Storms have wrecked pioneering wave generators in Norway and Britain and badly damaged a European Union experiment in the Azores Islands of Portugal. The genius of Pelamis is that it avoids storm destruction because its segmented body is designed to rock and roll with the waves. As its hinged joints heave and fold, they pump hydraulic pistons, which in turn spin high-pressure fluid generators. The system uses off-the-shelf technology, and the current travels by cable to shore. The cable also works like a boat's anchor and chain, holding Pelamis in place while allowing enough play to keep it positioned head-on into the wind and waves.

The design allows Pelamis to withstand storm waves that rise 10 times as high as average waves and pack 100 times as much power. As waves get steeper and uglier, Pelamis dives through them like a surfer ducking through a breaker. "People in the wave field looked from the start for efficiency; you have to start from survivability," says Max Carcas, director of business development for Pelamis.

Like oil, wave power is unequally distributed and a matter of lucky geology. Because Earth rotates eastward, and winds come mostly from the west, waves tend to be strongest at latitudes distant from the equator and at the eastern ends of long fetches, such as the western coasts of continents. Waves off Western Europe and the Pacific Northwest can generate a hefty 40 to 60 kilowatts per yard width of wave front. West of Ireland and Scotland, the average wave power rises to 70 kilowatts. But on the east coasts of Asia, Africa, Australia, and the Americas, waves average just 10 to 20 kilowatts per yard.

Inevitably, people trying to understand the potential of wave energy try to compare it with wind power. But wind, though capricious, is a relatively simple phenomenon, and efforts to capture its energy quickly settled around standard aerodynamics that reverse the principles of powering a propeller plane. On a tower, a prop pushed by wind spins a shaft connected to a generator. Capturing waves is much more complex, forcing engineers to contrive a head-spinning assortment of designs. A wave can drive a pump, a piston, and a turbine. Each can produce either mechanical motion or fluid pressure, which in turn can drive a generator. Nearly two dozen wave-energy systems are in development, and most are striking in their differences, not their similarities.

POTENTIAL SOURCES OF SEA POWER

WAVES

HOW TO HARNESS: Floating or shoreside devices capture wave energy to produce electricity (or, in the future, hydrogen or desalinated water)

UPSIDES: Large, widespread resource; promising economics; environmentally benign; readily scalable

DOWNSIDES: Variable intensity (though much more predictable and consistent than wind); hazardous conditions; many designs are untested for long-term survivability; navigation and sea-space concerns

PROSPECTS: Good in the medium and long term; uncertain for the short term


TIDAL CURRENTS

HOW TO HARNESS: Rotary turbines and other collectors capture energy in underwater tidal streams

UPSIDES: Extremely dense energy source; highly predictable; promising economics; scalable

DOWNSIDES: Daily slack intervals; underwater devices difficult and costly to service; less widespread than waves

PROSPECTS: Good


OCEAN CURRENTS

HOW TO HARNESS: Devices capture in-stream energy in the same way as tidal-current collectors but operate in monodirectional, heat-driven oceanic "rivers," such as the Gulf Stream

UPSIDES: Dense, large-scale, predictable; constant resource

DOWNSIDES: Limited number of sites; technical challenges; uncertain impact on ocean circulation patterns

PROSPECTS: Promising in the long run; big payoff once issues are resolved


ESTUARINE TIDES

HOW TO HARNESS: Dams impound flows behind gates and release them through hydroelectric turbines

UPSIDES: Proven, reliable technology; low operating costs

DOWNSIDES: Major environmental impacts; high capital cost; limited number of sites

PROSPECTS: Unlikely

Waves originate when air and water surface temperatures are not the same. The heat of the sun causes air to rise, and the rising air produces wind, which pushes the water into waves. But the particles in a wave do not travel far like the molecules in wind. Instead, wind-stirred water particles begin rotating, nudging the particles ahead of them, which in turn start to revolve and nudge those ahead of them, and so on, sometimes for thousands of miles. Although the particles mostly return to their original positions, the wave travels onward.

Waves are also more concentrated than wind. Although winds reach higher velocities, waves tend to be more powerful because water is 832 times as dense as air. Once a wave gets moving, it packs a heavier punch.

Waves—and tides—offer other advantages over wind. Winds are notoriously fickle, rising, gusting, and diminishing, sometimes within minutes. Waves keep rolling once they build momentum and can be forecast as far as three days away. Tides are so regular they can be forecast for decades.

Finally, wave machines hold another edge: They're more discreet. In areas like Cape Cod, noisy, view-blocking, bird-whacking wind towers have sparked a backlash. Wave generators, says engineering professor Stephen Salter of the University of Edinburgh, are "quite nice to have around, just like big, friendly whales."

Most make little noise. Rotating parts are either self-contained or so slow moving that marine animals should be able to avoid them. Wave farms don't interfere with aviation or radar, like wind towers, and they require far less space than wind farms. They must, however, be sited outside sea-lanes and marked well.

Recently, the Electric Power Research Institute, an industry-supported think tank based in Palo Alto, California, judged Pelamis the only wave-energy system advanced enough for use in trials scheduled for the waters of Maine, Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii. One can only imagine the sight—40 red serpents undulating in the sea, churning out 12 megawatts of power.

To pioneers like Yemm, generating electricity is just the beginning. He looks forward to a day when the same technology will be used to desalinate water or produce hydrogen: "Wave is new. It has the potential to be really big."
8/13/2007 5:26:53 PM EDT
[#2]
Find it here:
discovermagazine.com/2007/may/the-ultimate-garbage-disposal

05.18.2007

The Ultimate Garbage Disposal: A power station eats up dirty landfill and churns out clean electricity.

by Tony McNicol

What could be better than a power station that eats up dirty landfill and churns out clean electricity? One facility in Utashinai, Japan, has been doing just that since 2003, using plasma—an electrically induced stream of hot, charged particles—to process up to 220 tons of municipal solid waste a day. Now a bigger and better $425 million plant is scheduled for completion by 2009 in Saint Lucie County, Florida. The operator, Atlanta-based Geoplasma, expects it to generate 160 megawatts of electricity—enough to power 36,000 homes—from a daily diet of trash.

At the plant, garbage will be superheated to more than 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit—about the temperature of the sun’s surface—by a NASA-developed plasma torch. Organic components will be gasifed by the heat; the inorganic remainder will be melted and removed. Syngas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, will be extracted from the gas output and used to drive turbines and generate electricity. Gases from the plant will be processed to remove dangerous compounds like dioxins, and the company pledges that emissions will be well under state and federal environmental limits. Heavy metals from the inorganic dross will be collected and sold as scrap.

Geoplasma hopes to do better than the Japanese facility, which generates just enough power for internal consumption. Operators there say that a chronic shortage of trash and unfavorable electricity prices have hampered the plant’s operations. The Florida facility, however, will be built right next to a large landfill, which the company will dig into at a daily rate of 1,000 tons—along with 2,000 tons of brand-new trash to be trucked in. Geoplasma is negotiating contracts to sell three-quarters of the electricity generated by the plant to a utility company. “It provides a solution to two growing problems for communities: increased waste and the need for more energy,” says Geoplasma president, Hilburn O. Hillestad. “Garbage disposal problems and rising energy costs have driven the economics of a plasma arc solution beyond possible to necessary.”
8/13/2007 5:31:37 PM EDT
[#3]
And for the electro-car freaks like _ here:

05.28.2006

A Better Energizer: An ultracapacitor is what really keeps going and going. . . .

by Alex Stone

If you've ever had a cell phone suddenly die on you, you know that batteries are the weak link in mobile electronics. That's why MIT electrical engineer Joel Schindall thinks the time is ripe for capacitors. "They are better than batteries in almost every way, except in the amount of energy they store," he says. Schindall and his research group have licked that limitation.

Unlike batteries, which produce voltage from a chemical reaction, capacitors store electricity between a pair of metal plates. The larger the area of the plates, and the smaller the space between them, the more energy a capacitor can hold. Schindall's group had a radical idea: Cover the plates with millions of microscopic filaments known as carbon nanotubes. The tiny tubes vastly expand the surface area, creating a perfect sponge for electricity. "Now we can expect to store an amount of energy that is comparable to what batteries store," he says.

A capacitor-powered cell phone could be charged in minutes or seconds instead of hours. And since capacitors can be reused indefinitely, environmental waste from discarded batteries would become a thing of the past. Schindall says battery-free bliss may be less than five years away.