Testing will soon begin stretch of roadway embedded with a network of Piezo Electric Generators (IPEG).

Huh? What is a Piezo Electric Generator?

A good example of a Piezo Electric Generator is the "electronic" igniter used in gas-powered heating appliances.

In the old days, gas appliances had "pilot lights" - a small continously-burning flame used to ignite the propane or butane gas. Nowadays appliances use the afore-mentioned "electronic" igniter. When you turn the knob on a gas stove, the gas starts to flow through the burner. Then you hear a click and see the spark. The spark ignites the gas and causes the flame over which one cooks. The same applies to water heaters, gas-powered cooking grills, clothes dryers, and furnaces.

The piezoelectric effect converts mechanical strain into electrical current.

Back to the electric road:

Cars, trucks, motorcycles, skateboards, etc. will roll along on the road. The moving mass of the vehicles will provide weight, motion, vibration, and temperature changes. Those comprise the mechanical energy (mechanical strain). Then the embedded network of Piezo Electric Generators will convert that mechanical energy into electrical energy.

The system is expected to scale up to 400 kilowatts (enough for 15-30 homes) from a 1-kilometer stretch of highway. The harvested energy can be transferred to the power grid, or used for specific local public infrastructure purposes such as street lighting.

A Jetson¹ moment: perhaps it could be used to charge batteries for electric cars or to power guidance systems that keep traffic moving safely with cars on "autopilot" - without driver intervention.^{2 3 4 5}

The IPEG is a pioneering invention in the field of Parasitic Energy harvesting. You'll hear much more about this in the years to come.

¹ The Jetsons

² Dancers at a RAVE could power those strobe lights.

³ Meth heads running around the kitchen could cook up new batches of meth.

⁴ Two words: Star Bucks.

⁵ Add your own applications here: Write clearly.

Source: Gizmag

Labels: alternative energy, jetsons, meth head, Piezo, starbucks

Would you like to help to reduce the grip that foreign nations and terrorists have on us? It's simple and it's free (mostly free). Recycle. That's it. Recycle.

Every recycling action we take reduces the need for purchasing foreign energy sources and foreign raw materials. The less we buy from abroad, the less dependency we have on foreign countries. The less dependency we have from far away places, the less vulnerable we are to the malicious actions of terrorists - and the actions of foreign nations. (Can you say 'oil embargo'?)

Recycling is important. Every day the majority of Americans make decisions about recycling - and reusing - materials. That can goes into the recycle bin; those newspapers go to the Boy Scouts shed in the parking lot at the grocery store; scrap office paper goes to a box in the lunchroom, and so on. That's good, but we as individuals and as a nation need to do much more.

So... in this recycling-conscious world, which material is most likely to be recycled? Paper? Plastic? Pop cans?

Steel is the material that, on the industrial scale, has been recycled for the longest time. In the USA, 4 times as much steel (by weight) is recycled as is the combined weight of aluminum and plastic. 71% of steel taken out of use - for example, wrecked cars - is recycled to make 'new' steel. More 'new' steel is produced from recycled steel than is produced from iron ore. Reason #1: cost. It's less expensive to re-use scrap steel than it is to process ore into iron, and then iron into steel. [ Main source of the above tidbits: National Geographic Films' "The Science of Steel." ]

Need to keep warm? Goose down had long been the the 'gold standard' for insulation in clothing (winter jackets,etc). Nowadays the geese can keep their feathers. There is a material for insulation that beats down every which way. It's lighter, has (pound-for-pound) better insulating qualities, isn't affected by getting wet, and costs less. The material: recycled plastic milk jugs.

Aluminum recycling has been done on a wide scale for for more than a generation. For 35 years or more many states have imposed a "deposit" fee on pop cans. The consumer pays 5 or 10 cents extra per can when purchasing canned goods. Then stores and recycling centers pay that same 5 or 10 cents per can to whomever 'returns' the can. It's a good thing, too. It costs the aluminum smelter 90% less to make 'new' aluminum from recycled post-consumer waste (pop cans) than to use aluminum ore. Besides the cost, there are at least 3 more advantages to recycling aluminum goods:

• National security. That's right, national security. Aluminum is vital to our way of life, and to our national defense, yet nearly 100% of aluminum ore is imported from outside the USA. If we don't recycle aluminum, and therefore use imported ore, foreign nations and terrorists can cripple parts of our economy (and defense) by cutting off the supply of bauxite (aluminum ore).
  
• Trash dumps. Our solid post-consumer waste (the stuff we throw away) has to go somewhere. The usual is the 'landfill' - the 'dump.' Landfills are, well, filling up. In my county, the solid waste disposal organization no longer uses a local landfill, because it is, well, full. The county collects trash, puts it in trucks, and hauls it to a larger collection facility a long distance from here - at great expense in labor AND in precious. ever-scarcer fuel. That larger 'dump' loads our trash onto railways, where a train hauls it to another state - and pays to dump it there. We're not alone in this. New York City and its environs haul much of their trash hundreds of miles by barge. My point: if we recycled more stuff, then less stuff would be hauled away and buried - wasting money, fuel, and land.
  
• Energy. That 90% less cost mentioned above: a lot of that expense saving is in the form of less energy - electricity - consumed. Less electricity used at the aluminum smelter means more electricity available for other purposes, meaning lower costs to the consumer, and less fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum) that has to be bought and transported from far away places. Besides, it's no secret that energy supplies have become an issue of national security.

Everything mentioned above for aluminum applies to

• glass bottles for beverages. The same process - charging 'deposit' fees for pop bottles and beer bottles - occurs in many states.
  
• steel, paper, plastic, and many more recyclable materials
  

Recycling is a win-win-win-win-win proposition for America and Americans. Of course, foreign nations and terrorists would prefer that we don't recycle. No doubt they wish I wouldn't write persuasive articles about the topic. Tough.

Find out more at Recycle America! and at your local recycling center.

Labels: alternative energy, aluminum, coal, electricity, glass, milk jugs, national security, natural gas, paper, recycle, steel, terrorists

What if there was a vote to decide if $13.5 billion in tax breaks for oil companies should go into oil alternatives, like solar and wind? What would you want your Senator to do?

Well, as you probably guessed, there was such a vote. We needed 60 votes to prevail, and 59 of them were in. But John McCain ducked the vote.¹

As a result, instead of powering millions of homes with clean energy and building next-generation solar technology, we're giving ExxonMobil and other companies billions in tax breaks at a time when they're already making record profits.

This vote is political dynamite. And if we all pitch in, we can make sure voters know about McCain's give-away to big oil. And it's a twofer—we'll run the ad in the battleground state of North Carolina to help remind voters that Senator Elizabeth Dole, who's up for re-election, voted for big oil tax breaks, too.

Check out the ad.

The ad links Republican support for oil tax breaks with the campaign contributions they're taking from the oil companies.

Exposing their favors for big oil can puncture Republican promises to help people hurting from high gas prices.

Our ad can help defeat McCain, win a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and promote real solutions to the energy crisis. Can you help put this ad on the air?

This is near the top of the list of critical issues facing America today. I sent a donation. Will you?

Source:
¹ "Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007," U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote, December 13, 2007

Labels: alternative energy, big oil, Exxon, george w. mccain, john mc bush, john mccain, record profits, renewable energy, tax break

As you read this, keep in mind that I have no quarrel with exploring for new oil and gas. My argument is with those who flat-out lie about the urgency of opening up more land and water to exploration and production.

The oil that might be produced from now-restricted sources would not impact gasoline prices in the near term - near meaning 10-12 years.

It also bothers me that all of the screaming and gnashing of teeth is a canard whose purpose is to divert attention from the best real sources of energy:

1. Conservation. As one small example, universally inflating tires properly and carefully tuning engines WILL save 4x as much petroleum as can be produced by opening up ALL restricted offshore drilling in the USA. Who agrees? The US Department of Energy, the US Department of Transportation, REPUBLICAN Governor of Florida Charlie Crist, REPUBLICAN Governor of California Arnold Schwartzenager, those leftist pinkos at NASCAR, and the anti-progress commies at the American Petroleum Institute- and thousands of actual experts (even many of those who are owned and operated by the oil industry). Total cost: $0 (you were going to get that tune-up anyway).
2. There are thousands of other little things that people can do every day to conserve energy. Total cost: $0.
3. There are hundreds of bigger things that people can do to conserve energy. Total cost: $some. But insulating buildings, using energy-efficent electrical products, orienting houses to take advantage of free sunshine, and so on.... all have short pay-back periods.
   
4. Reopening old oil wells that were capped back when it cost to much to extract the oil that sold for $10-$15 per barrel. That supply dwarfs the supply in the proven reservesin our offshore zones. And ANWAR's small reserves don't even register on any scale that metters. Cost to the consumer: $0. Cost to the oil industry: much less than the cost of new development.
5. Alternative energy sources: Oilman T. Boone Pickens and billionaires like Richard Branson, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett are all investing in the growing alternative energy industries.... especially wind power.
   
6. Alternative energy sources: In Germany, ALL new houses have built-in energy-producing equipment (mostly solar, in gray, gloomy Germany!). Sure it costs something, but the payback is under 10 years... and German law (and US law) require power distribution companies to buy unused home-produced energy that is fed into the grid. That shortens that payback period.
7. Alternative energy sources: Who holds most of the US patents and produces most of the equipment for solar-to-electricity production - and have been in the industry for 0ver 30 years? Atlantic-Richfield (ARCO)
   
8. Alternative energy sources: Bio-fuels (no, not that boondoggle corn-based ethanol). Ethanol from carbohydate-rich plants. Soy (even Henry Ford and Rudolph Diesel promoted soy oil). Pond Scum: one of the most promising sources being researched is algae. Think about it: today's oil is not based on dinosaurs; it's based on ancient algae and plankton. Grow algae, but don't bother to wait millions of years to harvest the carbon in those plants; scrape it out of your now-useless backyard pool and sell it to the next Exxon. Then go back and grow more.
   

Opening up new oilfields will not produce any usuable petroleum for 7-10 years, and supplies would have a negligble effect on gasoline prices only after 12-15 years. That's 12-15 years better devoted to developing energy sources which are better, cleaner, cheaper.

Considering the awesome business opportunities that await entrepreneurs, why is our government policy focused on promoting old-school oil and all but destroying alternatives? Do I really have to tell you? More significantly, why don't oil companies use their massive resources to corner the market on new energy sources AND extend the profitable life of their oil assets?

The reason is short-term thinking and greed. The people who fund big projects no longer consider the long run. They want it all now! The gimme generation is worried about next quarter's stock price and next quarter's bonuses. Screw you and your children and children's children. The gimme guys died with the most toys, and the future gets to clean up their messes.

What ever happened to taking responsibility for one's actions?

Labels: algae, alternative energy, bio-fuel, biofuel, entrepreneur, ethanol, personal responsibility, profit, responsibility, solar, soy, wind

In April 2008 I took John McBush to task for his unwarranted image as a maverick. Now I will correct him on an error of fact that he makes. To be fair, it is a mistake that many, many people make - even people who think of themselves as environmentalists.

Before he was a candidate for the nomination to run for president as a republican, GW McCain said "Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve our air quality."

That was then.

But, in time for the 2008 Iowa Caucuses, "I do not support subsidies, but I support ethanol and I think it is a vital alternative energy source, not only because of our dependence on foreign oil but because of its greenhouse reduction effects"

White man speak with forked tongue.

Worse, his knowledge of science is faulty.

"ethanol ... greenhouse reduction effects". Wrong! Where, oh, where to begin?

Everyone take notes. There will be a quiz on this.

1. Ethanol is a carbon-based source of energy. For you technically minded, its chemical formula is C₂H₅OH.
   
   
2. ANY and EVERY Carbon-based fuel releases energy AND CO₂ (Also known as Carbon Dioxide). CO₂ is a major component of our greenhouse gas problem.
   
   • The "C₂" part is the Carbon component of ethanol.
   • "H₅" is Hydrogen
   • "OH" means that a part of the ethanol molecule is a hydroxide, and consists of Hydrogen and Oxygen
     
   • The nice thing about the H and OH portions of ethanol is that when burned , as in an internal combustion engine, the by-product includes water - that's the sort-of good news. The bad news is that water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
   • Much worse - in terms of greenhouse gases - is that when the carbon in ethanol is oxidized (when it burns), it releases energy and forms Carbon Dioxide.
   • In other words, when you burn ethanol to release the energy contained therein, you release two greenhouse gases. There is a Law of Nature that covers the topic. It is inevitable.
     
     
3. Ethanol-as-fuel is a hot topic. But when politicians address Ethanol-as-fuel, they are referring Ethanol-as-fuel-made-from-corn, which translates into votes in the Farm Belt and campaign funds from such agribiz giants as Archer-Daniels-Midland and Cargill. They want you to believe that Ethanol-as-fuel-made-from-corn is a good idea, when the real issue is getting elected/re-elected.
   
   Ethanol-as-fuel is probably a good idea. Ethanol-as-fuel-made-from-corn is not just a bad idea, it's worse: it's a distraction from real issues regarding energy.
   
   In today's agriculture, corn is expensive to grow. From a financial viewpoint, it requires good soil, huge amounts of fertilizer and pesticides, and massive fuel-guzzling farm equipment.
   
   From any energy viewpoint, all of those items (except the soil) require petroleum to produce, transport, and use.
   
   In today's refinery system, corn is an expensive raw material for producing an energy source. It requires a lot of energy input, e.g., heat - to produce the ethanol.
   
   All things considered, it requires about 3 gallons of fuel to create, transport, and deliver 4 gallons of fuel at the gas pump. And - those 4 gallons of fuel do not produce as many miles as 4 gallons of petroleum-based fuel.
   
   That's just the tip of the iceberg. As corn production is diverted to ethanol production, corn is taken from the food supply. That causes food prices (and feed prices for livestock) to increase. Reducing the corn supply also impacts other parts of the food network. We are beginning to see shortages and price hikes of food other than corn. For example, if grain production resources were diverted to corn production, the price of wheat will shoot up; in turn, prices of wheat-based foods will skyrocket (you heard it here first).
   
   Ethanol-as-fuel-made-from-corn just doesn't make economic or ecological sense.
   

Do we need alternative sources of energy? Absolutely. BUT! Everyone needs to understand that

• substituting one carbon-based energy source for another is NOT a solution to the critical greenhouse gas / global warming problems that we face
• among Ethanol-as-fuel endeavors, ethanol-as-fuel-made-from-corn benefits politicians and agribiz. It does little, if anything for the rest of us.
• While any ethanol production will help reduce oil imports, it is more than anything else, a distraction from the pursuit of REAL energy solutions.
  

How do we solve our growing energy, dependence on foreign oil, and pollution (greenhouse gas) problems?

• We can't fall into the trap of seeking a panacea - a one size fits all - approach.
• Our biggest - best - easiest first step is conservation; we need a comprehensive national program to use less and recycle more.
• Make better use of "local" oil. Consider this: 40% of US oil production is exported. Reigning that in won't solve the greenhouse gas problem, but it would most certainly put a dent in oil imports. How can it make sense to export oil and import expensive oil that comes with strings attached. There are serious geopolitical issues involved in being at the mercy of people who despise us and use our money (money that we paid for foreign oil) to support terrorists who will most certainly attack us repeatedly.
• Develop good alternative sources of energy - preferably sources that don't carry baggage such as greenhouse gas production and destruction of the natural environment. Interestingly, developing and producing these alternative energy sources will help in another big way: it will encourage entrepreneurship and will create new jobs right here in the good ol' US of A.
  

Labels: alternative energy, carbon dioxide, carbon-based fuel, co2, conservation, ethanol, maverick, mcbush, mccain, misconception, misunderstanding