A century after Darwin wrote his seminal work, the Galapagos Islands were designated as a National Park and the Charles Darwin Foundation was established to protect the extraordinary ecosystem that has provided the backdrop for so much scientific research and so much enjoyment for so many.

But the people living in the Galapagos Islands today have needs Mother Nature cannot fill: foremost among them, the need for energy. There are now about 6,000 people living on San Cristóbal, the largest of the inhabitable islands in the archipelago. Like the rest of the modern world, residents of the island have growing needs for energy, but are concerned about the environmental impact of their energy consumption.

photo: jasonpearce
Positioned too far from Ecuador to tap into its electrical grid, the islanders have had to rely on oil shipments to provide the fuel needed to run their diesel generators. That has, historically, meant frequent trips using small boats, due to the limited capacity of the island’s generators to store the fuel necessary to keep them burning. And with each trip the oil tankers make, there is an increased chance of accidents. What’s more, every trip taken uses up additional fuel just to power the tankers.

photo: jasonpearce
So, the Galapagos Islands are turning–literally turning, green–with wind power. The project, slated to be completed sometime this year, will install three wind-powered turbines that are expected to reduce the number of oil shipments by half. They should also reduce the carbon dioxide being generated by about 2,800 tons per year.

But some residents of San Cristóbal are not altogether pleased. With wind turbines towering at 170 feet, blades that measure 193 feet in diameter and power lines that stretch for 7.5 miles, they are concerned that the visual impact of the turbines will hurt the tourist trade.

After all, people come to the Galapagos for its natural beauty: diving, bird watching, snorkeling, sea kayaking, wind surfing, surfing and fishing are all on the activity list for the tourists who flock there yearly.

photo: jasonpearce
Jim Tolan, Project Director for the wind farm project, is not concerned. He believes that the residents and the tourists who frequent the islands are committed to renewable energy and will welcome the opportunity to turn the island of San Cristóbal into a “showcase for their concerns about the environment” He’s probably right. After all, the residents of these islands surely have better things to do with their time than fight windmills, wouldn’t you think?

photo: jasonpearce

The Master Plan developed for West Marin in 1964 promised a different future for the region. It included coastal resorts, airstrips, four-lane highways, marinas, and a lot more people. In 1971, conservationists bought tracts of land along Bolinas and Tomales Bay, and organized citizens were able to reject the Plan. It was put to rest once and for all when, in 1973, the West Marin Board of Supervisors limited housing development to one house per 60 acres.

And so, if you visit West Marin today, it’s as tranquil and untouched as it’s ever been. To ensure that it stays this way, the residents of West Marin have taken some very unique and pro-active steps.

EAC

Formed in 1971 by the residents of thirteen unincorporated West Marin communities, the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin is the strongest, and sometimes only, advocate for environmental and wildlife issues. Because there is no local government, the EAC is often the only entity speaking on behalf of West Marin’s environment and natural resources before County, State, and Federal government organizations.

The purpose of the West Marin EAC is to ensure “the protection and appreciation of West Marin’s natural environment and rural character. EAC works for clean air, pure waters, healthy ecosystems, a diverse and thriving native flora and fauna, and the preservation of a rural, community spirit.”

Some of the EAC’s more notable achievements include the banning, in 2001, of all jet-ski activity on Tomales Bay. This makes Tomales Bay, at 948 square nautical miles, the largest jet-ski free area in the country. In 1998, the EAC produced “Madre Terra Solo Hay Una”, the first Hispanic environmental education video ever in the United States.

One of it’s more impressive stand-offs was against the Pritzker family of Chicago, who owns the Hyatt hotel chain. In 2003, the family purchased 850 acres of land, on which they intended to build homes, stables, and guest houses that would have totaled over 52,000 square feet of development. While some counties and cities would welcome this kind of development (and addition to their tax base), the EAC’s primary concern was with the potential agricultural repercussions.

Luxury estates drive up land prices, making them unaffordable for working ranchers to purchase. And of course, where one goes, others will follow, which could have potentially turned the area into a mini-resort, steering it away from it’s current agricultural base.

Determined to ensure that this didn’t happen, the EAC negotiated with the family, convincing them to reduce the size of their planned build. The EAC also required the residential homes to meet strict energy and green building standards.

Countywide Plan

First developed and approved in 1994, this plan has provided years of public policy direction regarding land use, and environmental protection. The Countywide Plan outlines Marin County’s policies on natural resources, agriculture, housing, and transportation. Any commercial or residential development that occurs in Marin County must comply with the policies in the Countywide Plan.

The plan was initially developed by four Working Groups that addressed sustainability, natural systems, built environment and the economy, equity, and culture. These groups created sustainability policies that were used as guidelines for the County Plan.

The plan divides Marin County into three corridors: the Coastal Recreational, the Inland Rural, and the City-Centered Corridors. The corridors were created as a means of controlling where and how land is developed, keeping the majority of the development focused in the City-Centered Corridor.

West Marin Exchange

The residents of West Marin can also utilize something called the “West Marin Exchange”. It’s an internet-based database where residents can buy, sell, and trade unwanted items, rather than throwing them out.

Green Business Program

Formed in 1996, the Green Business Program is a partnership between the environmental and business communities. Through this program, businesses are taught how to comply with “Green Business Standards” for minimizing waste products, conserving resources, and preventing pollution. Local governments in the Bay Area collaborated with the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the California EPA Department of Toxic Substance Control, and the business community to form the rules and regulations that make up the program.

Though the process is voluntary, over 300 businesses to date have been certified.
Becoming certified means that a business complies with environmental regulations, and take a proactive approach to prevent pollution and preserving natural resources.

With these, and other programs, in place, West Marin has maintained it’s pristine, beautiful land, while simultaneously welcoming residential and commercial development. The balance they have achieved sets an exemplary example for communities everywhere.

Source

In 1964, a report produced by the Tennessee Department of Public Health stated that the Chattanooga Creek was “without a doubt, the most grossly polluted stream in the Chattanooga area.”

In 1969, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare determined that Chattanooga, Tennessee had the poorest air quality in the nation. This was due, in large part, to a heavy manufacturing industry that included chemicals and pesticides.

Many cities have faced these same challenges. Many cities still do. But Chattanooga’s responses and solutions have been unique, and very successful.

One of the first things the city did was create, and have approved by the state, the Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau. The Bureau was charged with establishing air quality regulations for the city. In an effort to ensure compliance of these regulations, the Bureau worked directly with the manufacturing sector. At the time, the primary need was for smokestack “scrubbers”, which remove most of the toxic by-products typically released by industrial smokestacks.

The manufacturing sector responded quickly and creatively. Not only did they agree to the $40 million in renovations that was needed, but local entrepreneurs chose to build the scrubbers in town. Today the scrubbers are still being manufactured, and are being exported worldwide. Thus, a profitable industry was created, while simultaneously improving air quality.

The city began holding “community visioning” meetings, seeking resident assistance with the environmental and economic troubles it was facing. One outcome of those meetings was the creation of the Moccasin Bend Task Force. This task force studied the 22-mile long Tennessee River and, with the input of hundreds of local citizens, developed the Tennessee River Park Master Plan. The Master Plan eventually resulted in the development of a 23-mile River Walk. The city maintains it through a yearly River Rescue clean-up effort, and it has enabled Chattanooga residents and tourists to enjoy the river again. The Master Plan didn’t just focus on the banks of the Tennessee River. It also included strategies for cleaning up and beautifying the banks of the creeks that feed into the river. In addition, a water treatment facility was built farther upstream, to aid in purifying the streams and lake. Now, where “no swimming” signs used to be the prominent feature, you can instead see people swimming, boating, or simply walking along the river’s edge.

From the river, the environmental revitalizing moved to the downtown district. Trees were planted along the streets. Not just for aesthetic purposes, but to help reduce pollution. The trees are purchased from a local, private nursery. Street pavers were built to help reduce the effects of storm water run-off. Air and traffic pollution have been reduced with the introduction of an electric mass transit system. The technology and vehicles were developed and built locally, and are now being exported globally. People who work downtown can park in garages at the edge of the downtown district, then take electric shuttles to their final destinations. The money generated from the parking garages helps cover the cost of the electric vehicles.

One of the most aggressive and innovative projects is the South-Central business district. Being built as an eco-industrial park, the goal is zero emissions. This means that the waste products from one industry become resources for another within the district.

Chattanooga has excelled at developing a sustainable community, because it has re-integrated the human element. At the heart of most of its initiatives has been the Chattanooga citizens themselves. The community vision meetings were the cornerstone for most of the changes that have been made. But the citizens don’t just offer ideas, they help implement and maintain them. This is done, not only through clean-up efforts like River Rescue, but also through everyday activities. The Orange Grove Recycling Center is a perfect example.

Though it could use machinery to separate the recyclable materials that come in from the nearly 60,000 homes and municipal drop-off sites, the Center instead employs about 100 developmentally disabled adults. Not only does manual sorting reduce industrial pollution, but it also gives an often-ignored part of the population a sense of purpose and belonging. The workers are paid for their time, and are given the opportunity to become and integral part of this community’s sustained environment.

Chattanooga Neighborhood Enterprise was yet another result of the community vision meetings. It is currently creating a mixed-use, mixed-income development in a part of downtown Chattanooga’s Southside district. Included is an elementary school that will allow children in the area to walk to school for the first time in years.

While most cities, nationally and globally, make an effort to reduce negative affects on the environment; few (if any) have attained the level of success enjoyed by Chattanooga. Here, industry is not the enemy, but instead has offered viable and effective solutions. Here, the citizen and the government official aren’t at odds. Rather, they work together to creatively address the environmental challenges the city has faced.

Chattanooga has become one of the few cities designated as an EPA attainment city. This has been due, in large part, to combined efforts of Chattanooga citizens and city officials.

From “most polluted city in the nation” to one of the best (possibly the best) models of an environmentally healthy and sustainable city, in under 40 years. Not bad.

Sources: Chattanooga Horizon Plan 2010, RiverCityCompany.com, CneInc.org

Photo courtesy of Esthr

There is an additional potential benefit that may make putting arrays of solar cells in outer space worth the cost. An array of solar cells, appropriately positioned between the earth and the sun, can absorb some of the incoming solar energy reducing the earth’s temperature and possibly contributing to relief from the greenhouse effect. However, if we bring the energy down to the ground and use it there, we would help counter the greenhouse effect indirectly, since we would use less fossil and petroleum fuels and thus generate less carbon dioxide.

How can we get the solar cell arrays into outer space economically? Rockets work, but they are anything but economical. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, anti-gravity and inertial drives do not work at all and magnetic drives are too weak. Many years ago I built an inertial drive to turn rotating unbalanced weights into a pulsating unidirectional force, but it didn’t work. The equations describing the inertial drive were based on LaGrange’s equations of motion which are based on the conservation of energy. Later a physicist friend explained to me that momentum is conserved, not energy. When I read the article about Michael Laine’s speech about “Nano bridges may precede space elevator”, I initially categorized the Space Elevator to go in the same file as the inertial drive.

On a trip to Dallas last weekend to do Christmas with part of my family, I kept thinking about the space elevator. It fascinated me. Earlier I had read the news release about Liftport’s planned space elevator and how they plan to shoot a rocket into outer space while spooling out a high strength carbon filament. They intend to build the elevator by shooting up multiple rockets like the Romans shot arrows across a river to build a bridge. They plan a “tethered satellite” with a tether or cable down to the ground keeping it from escaping into outer space. The cable will provide the space elevator function. To keep the tether from breaking the satellite must be in a geo-stationary orbit where its angular velocity exactly matches that of the point on the earth directly beneath it. On the way home I jotted down my ideas about the space elevator and when we got back searched the internet to see what I could find. I was surprised by the huge amount of information available on the space elevator, so I think it worth while to summarize it and to describe one possible approach to building a space elevator and to discuss some of the problems involved in building it.

Apologies to you mathophobes, but I need an equation to explain why I am excited about this. Let’s describe the centrifugal force, fC, on a tethered satellite as:

fC = m ω2 (r + rB)

where m is the mass, ω is the constant angular velocity, r is the difference between the actual radius and rB, and rB is the distance from the center of the earth to the radius where the centrifugal force on the mass of the rocket and cable just balances the force of gravity pulling towards the earth’s center. This is analogous to the parking radius, but takes into account the mass of the cable tether, so rB will be slightly larger than the radius for a geo-stationary orbit. The net lifting capability of the tethered satellite is:

fL = m ω2 r

The angular velocity, ω, has to be constant, so we can’t do anything with it. We can use expensive rockets to send a large mass up into orbit to increase “m” in order to get a larger lifting force for the elevator. But, there is another variable available, r, the distance between the balance point and m. As the tether grows longer r increases and the lifting capability increases. Instead of spending a lot to increase m, you can get the same effect by just spooling out more cable.

Why this is important? Once you get the tether out past the balance point, the larger r, the more the lifting force. Given a cable light enough and strong enough to handle this environment extended up past the balance point; all you have to do to strengthen the cable is to crank more stronger cable up into space.2

As you extend the cable, centrifugal force will act to move the tethered mass back to the original angle. As the cable to which the tethered satellite is attached is gradually let out the cable will move back, away from the direction of rotation, but will gradually tend to speed back up stabilizing at the new maximum distance from the surface of the earth.3

Once a stronger cable is in place, you can crank up a still stronger one and so on. However, as the cable extends and the mass moves further and further outwards the centrifugal force will increase more and more. Eventually, if you keep cranking out cable, centrifugal force will create so much tension in the cable that it will break. But, with an appropriate cable design we should be able to go for a long ways while staying within safe limits for the cable tension.

Some analysts have suggested that the optimum cable design is a gradually tapered one with the largest part at the geo-stationary orbit point where the tension is maximum.4 However, it will probably be much more economical to produce a cable with the same dimensions. In fabricating semiconductors, each parameter you have to tweak costs money to control and takes time to optimize. If we are going to be able to get a stable process operating to generate long segments of high strength carbon filament cable, we need to make the process as simple as possible. Varying the dimensions will complicate the cable fabrication process which is already very difficult. So it makes sense to just make one size of cable. If this cable is light enough and has enough surplus strength to support a reasonably sized mass extended several hundred kilometers beyond the balance point, it could be used to build a space elevator.

Once we get a good functioning space elevator, the resulting space station needs to have enough reserve propulsion capability to correct it’s orbit if the cable is cut. A series of links to other cable stations would be logical. However, if all of their cables were cut, they would need a way to keep from sailing off into outer space. Probably the best thing to do would be to keep the stations near the geo-synchronous orbit and if the cable is cut, cut the upper cable to their ballast masses. That way if the tether cable is cut they will not go sailing off into outer space.

Of course this is a simplistic analysis to illustrate the concept, in real life we should include the effect of the decrease in earth’s gravity as the radius increases and other second order effects such as the moon’s gravity, the oblateness of the earth, etc. My goal for this article is to explain the concept, leaving the details for future articles.

That is what amazed me, the math says it will work! Not only will the Space Elevator work, but depending on the cost, availability, and reliability of light weight high strength cable, it makes good economic sense!

The ideal location for the base of the space elevator would be a high mountain on the earth’s equator in order to start as far as possible from the earth’s center. The higher you start, the less energy you have to spend to climb out of the earth’s gravity well and the less cable you need.

The highest point on the Equator is 4,690 m, at 77° 59′ 31″ W on the south slopes of Volcan Cayambe (summit 5,790 m) in Ecuador. This is a short distance above the snow line, and is the only point on the Equator where snow lies on the ground. 5 Other possible locations include Adam’s Peak in Sri Lanka which Arthur C. Clarke used as a base for a space elevator in his 1978 novel, “The Fountains of Paradise”.6

On the other hand, Michael Laine’s company, Liftport, seems to favor a sea level launching pad according to the news release, this could solve a lot of the political problems of trying to build a the base for the space elevator within some foreign country.

According to Bradley Carl Edwards “some of these challenges would be met merely by locating the elevator’s Earth anchor in the eastern equatorial Pacific, west of the Galapagos Islands, where the weather is unusually calm and the threats from hurricanes, tornadoes, lightning, jet streams, and wind are greatly reduced. This location is also about 650 km from any current air routes or sea lanes, significantly reducing the chance of an accidental collision and making the site easier to secure against terrorists. An anchor in the Pacific obviously implies a floating platform, but such structures are already commercially available, thanks to the offshore oil industry.” 7

Next, assume that we can get the needed ultra light high strength cable, what are the risks involved in the Space Elevator? As my old supervisor used to say, “It’s the questions you don’t ask, that get you”. One potential show-stopper may be Van Allen Belt and other radiation in outer space changing the molecular properties of the cable causing possible fracture. Also, the motion of the cable may cause a phenomenon called strain hardening which can leads to stress fractures. This may be exacerbated by some of the cable crawlers they are postulating which would flex the cable a lot.

Brad Edwards ribbon cable idea with a cable composed of many parallel fibers may reduce flexing by using cable climbers with roller clamps which cause minimum damage to the cable.7 A way is needed to check for developing fractures in the cable before they become catastrophic.

Other risks include: corrosion; airplanes; other satellites; space debris; meteors; mechanical resonances such as they had in the Tacoma Narrows bridge 8; Terrorists/Sabotage; if the cable or part of it is conductive the effect of electromagnetic waves from the sun or from a nearby nuclear event must be taken into account; and finally the political Implications of deploying solar cells between the earth and the sun. This could absorb some of the incoming solar energy reducing the earth’s temperature and relieving the greenhouse effect. But, will some countries be upset or sue if we deliberately change their temperature?

So to conclude, when ultra-light, ultra-strong cable fiber becomes available in large quantity, at a low enough price, we should seriously consider building a space elevator. Before building it, we need to evaluate and minimize the various risks, and to build a robust, redundant system which will not easily fail catastrophically, or have significant vulnerabilities. Given an operational space elevator with a solar array generating plenty of power, we will leave the transmission of the power back to earth for future study.

References
1)	Nano bridges may precede space elevator Michael Kanellos
	CNET News.com

http://news.cnet.co.uk/gadgets/0,39029672,39193526,00.htm

2)	http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/space%20elevator
	"Brad Edwards' proposal"

3)	http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/space%20elevator
	"Launching into outer space"

4)	http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/space%20elevator
	"Cable Taper"
5)	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator
6)	http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/space%20elevator
	"History"

7)	http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aug05/1690
	"A Hoist to the Heavens"
	By: Bradley Carl Edwards

  http://www.vibrationdata.com/Tacoma.htm  by Tom Irvine

As a result of its design, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge experienced rolling undulations which were driven by the wind. Strong winds caused the bridge to collapse on November 7, 1940. Initially, 35 mile per hour winds excited the bridge’s transverse vibration mode, with an amplitude of 1.5 feet. At that time engineers did not fully understand the forces acting upon bridges and how they would react with the natural frequency of the bridge structure.

Related Links of Interest

The Space Elevator Challenge
The Liftport Company

Second, we need economical and safe ways to distribute and to store hydrogen.

Third, we need economical yet effective ways to turn stored hydrogen back into useful energy. All of these must be reliable, safe and simple to use.

An economical way to store energy is key to the future development of the alternative power techniques now under development. Wind power is perhaps my favorite, I think of windmills in Holland pumping out water so they can reclaim the land. It sounds romantic, peaceful and pleasant. Since wind power is inherently clean and free, it may become a major component in reducing our usage of fossil and nuclear power, thus reducing the pollution that goes with them.

In states where the bulk of the electric power comes from fossil and from nuclear power sources there is a need to convert to clean power. In an article on “Alternative Power for Nebraska,” I pointed out that Nebraska is making good progress, especially in additional wind power, but not only do they need to reduce their fossil and nuclear power consumption, their hydroelectric capability is literally drying up. The river water in the Platte River, which provides more that half of Nebraska’s already small hydroelectric capability is dwindling. An economical way to store excess wind power energy such as clean hydrogen is key to the future development of wind power and may be the salvation of windy Nebraska. Note that here I use the words “clean hydrogen”, because there are “dirty” ways to make hydrogen, which generate pollution themselves.

Let’s look at two ways to generate hydrogen, one of them old and one very new, and two ways to use it, one of them also quite new, and then suggest a few possible improvements. The good news is that a lot of research and development is taking place on alternative power sources and as a result, good things are happening. With a huge fortune to be made by whoever solves the alternative power puzzle, companies are spending a lot on research looking for the holy grail of a economical pollution-free engine that burns clean, low cost fuel. Interestingly enough, the three corporations which spent the most on R&D in 2004 were Ford, Daimler-Chrysler and Toyota, automobile companies.

The first technique for generating clean hydrogen is electrolysis. To do electrolysis you run a DC current through water with some sulfuric acid in it. The water molecules separate into hydrogen and oxygen, one at one electrode and the other at the anode. I remember very clearly my high school chemistry class where we did this. You were supposed to tell which electrode had the hydrogen with a lit match. We did something wrong, and the whole apparatus blew up. I had holey acid-washed jeans, many years before they came into style. So hydrogen is potentially dangerous, and can produce an explosion. Techniques will be necessary to safely handle and store hydrogen, just as techniques had to be developed for safely handling gasoline.

Currently, generation of hydrogen by electrolysis is not considered very efficient. In an article in the March 2005 issue of IEEE Spectrum Prachi Patel Predd says that the current technique of generating hydrogen from natural gas costs about $4 to $5 per kilogram of hydrogen and generates a lot of pollution, while he says that electrolysis costs about $9.00 per kilogram and is not cost effective. (A kilogram of hydrogen has approximately the same energy as a gallon of gasoline)

However, if relatively free wind power is factored into the analysis, electrolysis may prove superior. A careful analysis matching the characteristics of the wind power source, the DC generator, and the electrolysis process could lead to a significant cost-reduction for wind driven electrolysis. My intuition says that electrolysis will probably not be the winning solution, but it should be evaluated fairly. Although a long shot, it might turn out to be the best solution. Remember before counting anything out, that a 19th century mathematician proved heavier than air flight to be impossible.

Before discussing the next technique for generating hydrogen we need to briefly look at fuel cells. A fuel cell is a device which combines hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity and water. NASA use them on spacecraft since they are efficient, pollution-free, and they produce water to drink.

There is an exciting new development in the fuel cell field. The Department of Energy is testing a new type of fuel cell, not one that burns oxygen and hydrogen giving off electricity and water, but one that runs backwards. They apply water (steam) and electricity and generate clean hydrogen by running electricity through it.

In the March 2005 issue of IEEE Spectrum the article “Cheaper Hydrogen Beckons” says that the DOE has found that by running this type fuel cell at 850 °C, they can run fuel cells in reverse and use electricity to produce hydrogen. The DOE plan is to use nuclear power to generate the necessary high temperature steam. They estimate a resulting cost of about $1.50 per kilogram of hydrogen as opposed to about $4 to $5 per kilogram of hydrogen generated from natural gas and about $9.00 per kilogram for electrolysis generated hydrogen. However, they plan to develop a new type of nuclear reactor in order to handle the 850 °C temperatures. It is hard to justify this economically. The article points out if we are going to build more nuclear reactors to generate hydrogen, why not just use the new reactors to generate the power needed and skip the hydrogen.

Ways of turning stored hydrogen back into electricity include fuel cells and internal combustion hydrogen engines. Yes, hydrogen internal combustion engines exist! They are not “Pie in the Sky”. These engines burn hydrogen gas and, like fuel cells, the resulting waste product is water. Several companies are working to develop hydrogen engines, and several automakers have joined together to achieve faster results. However, Ford Motor Company is apparently going to beat it’s competition to market. According to a press release in February 2005, Ford Motor Company has already developed hydrogen powered automobile engines and put two different ones into calibration testing. Apparently, they passed the test, as the turbocharged one is part of Ford’s new “U” car, which they plan as the Model-T of the 21st century. If the auto manufacturers can get the price of hydrogen internal combustion engines low enough, these engines may turn out to be the best way to turn stored hydrogen back into electricity. With the huge amount of money to be made, I expect the automakers to pour a lot of resources into making this happen.

So electrolysis or reverse fuel cells can be used to generate clean hydrogen and fuel cells or internal combustion hydrogen engines used to turn stored hydrogen back into electricity. It will be interesting to see what the year 2030 will be like. I predict that the DOE is underestimating the rapidity of the change to clean energy.

References

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/IntermediateHydrogen.html#Ho

IEEE SPECTRUM December 2005, “R&D” by Ron Hira and Harry Goldstein.
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/mar05/2031 “Cheaper Hydrogen Beckons” by Prachi Patel Predd

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell.htm/

http://news.techwhack.com/index.php?s=hydrogen+engine&submit=Search

http://www.motorcities.com/contents/05/2005-Ford-Introduces-Hydrogen-Engines-to-Industrial-Market_05BR1544205593.html

http://www.ford.com/en/innovation/engineFuelTechnology/hydrogenInternalCombustion.htm

The land that we saw in Nebraska was flat. The farm houses had clusters of trees around them for windbreaks, and a lot of the fields had a border of trees as a wind break. As a desert-raised Arizonan, I was fascinated by the irrigation pipe systems on wheels that they use to water large fields. Jeff’s father, a farmer, has one of these irrigation pipe systems, which draws water from a nearby well.

I asked about the water table — it’s a big concern. They depend on rain mostly to water their crops and only irrigate when necessary, but the water table has fallen, and there may come a time when their irrigation systems won’t work. Nebraska needs some other industries. But they have a significant natural resource that could boost their economy and be a benefit to the whole country. Wind.

After investigating, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that there are already several windpower generators in Nebraska, just not very many. The Nebraska Energy Office lists several wind power generation projects, one of which is the MEAN Wind Project at Kimball. Kimball’s site shows pictures of seven wind turbines and of horses contentedly drinking with two wind turbines in the background. The project was created to provide reliable, economical, environmentally friendly energy to participating utilities and their customers. Currently it provides energy to communities in Nebraska, Colorado and Wyoming.

According to the American Wind Energy Association, Nebraska is ranked sixth in the nation in potential energy from wind power. In 2004 Nebraska had 12 operational wind turbines in Nebraska whose average annual output could power about 2,880 homes.

However, a 36-turbine wind farm near Ainsworth began commercial operation in October 2005, their average annual output can power 19,000 homes. From 2880 to 21,880 is a significant increase, but there still is a long way to go.

According to Encarta, in the year 2000 sixty four percent of Nebraska’s electricity came from thermal power plants burning fossil fuels, while another 32% was generated by nuclear power plants. Nebraska’s small amount of hydroelectric power came from Bureau of Reclamation’s dams on the Missouri River and hydroelectric plants in Colorado and Wyoming.

The nice thing about wind power is that after the initial installation cost, it is virtually free, with no expensive oil or coal to pay for, no smelly refineries, and with minimal pollution. You can turn windpower into electricity and sell it locally or on the national power grid. I noticed that there are some people are concerned about wind power possibly hurting some birds, personally I am more concerned about fossil fuel and nuclear power’s waste products hurting birds, fish, animals, and people.

But wind power does have an inherent problem. Wind speed is not constant and, as we said earlier, wind power output varies as the cube (third power) of the wind speed, a 26% increase in wind speed will result in twice as much output power. My wife, a super shopper, loves to find bargains. Getting double output for 26% additional input is a bargain she would love.

On the down side, a drop of 26 per cent in wind speed will cut output power to 40% — check the math yourself if you don’t believe it. So it makes sense to put the windmills where the wind is highest. In order to do this, the Nebraska Wind Energy Monitoring Program, a consortium of power companies, the state government, and concerned citizens groups, is measuring and recording the wind at several points around the state. Using this information to locate and configure future wind power plants could lead to a clean power industry for Nebraska.

When talking about wind power benefits, they use “average” a lot. That’s because there are times when windpower is almost zero, and other times when it is huge. Currently, by selling windpower on the national power grid, the grid itself can supply the power needed during low wind times. In order to be able to supply peak demands, the national power grid must have a large and readily available surplus capacity.

When wind power does become a significant contributor, there will be times when the grid doesn’t need all the windpower, so unless stored the wind power will be wasted. Also, as wind power provides more power on the national power grid, there may be times when the grid will have difficulty meeting the demands of the wind power customers during no-wind conditions. So an economical way to store excess wind-power energy is key for it to become a major provider of our nation’s power.

Following are several possible wind power storage techniques. If you think these ideas are far out, remember that in the 19th century, a German scientist proved mathematically that heavier than air flight was impossible.

Chemical Batteries

The most obvious solution is to use excess windpower to generate electric current to charge batteries. But, the most economical batteries do not work well at cold temperatures and gradually lose their charge over time. Your car battery gets recharged frequently. If you let your car sit for a few months without turning it on, the battery runs down. To store a lot of power efficiently over time would require large batteries, which will probably be pretty expensive. However, since the new hybrid cars are now a reality, the race is on to find economical, safe, and efficient batteries. If they do, batteries may turn out to be the winning solution.

Hydrogen

Another solution to wind power’s energy storage problem is to use the excess windpower to generate hydrogen gas. The hydrogen gas can be stored for later use to generate electricity. Hydrogen can be generated directly from water using wind power, but there is a much less fancy way to store wind energy using water along with another universal resource.

Water and Gravity

Excess windpower can be used to pump water to a higher location where the water can then be used to run hydroelectric generators when needed. Windpower could be used to enhance the capacity of existing hydroelectric plants or a marriage of wind power and hydropower could make both of them more efficient. This power storage technique does not require any high-tech breakthroughs and could be used to get more power out of existing hydroelectric plants, such as along the Platte river, where hydropower plants generate more than half of Nebraska’s hydroelectric power according to a 1997 report.

However, it turns out that the Platte River is one of several endangered rivers due to water scarcity according to American Rivers. A lawsuit between Nebraska and Wyoming over the Platte River was settled in 2001, but as the water becomes more and more scarce, there may be more litigation.

Water squabbles can be very serious. I remember as a boy in school in Arizona reading that in 1921 the Governor of Arizona called up the National Guard to fight California over Colorado river water. The quarrel was settled peacefully, but people go to war over water.

Everyone would like to get more benefit from the water they do have. Reusing the water that we have by using wind power to pump it uphill or upstream may be a partial solution to the growing water shortage problem. If one postulates a large water tank on a tower, with a catch basin or tank at the bottom, the falling water could be used to power a hydroelectric generator and then, using wind power, pumped back uphill into the storage tank for reuse. This idea uses purely conventional technology, and I think it could work. Some experiments will be required.

Wind Is Free

Windmills are inherently pollution free and relatively risk free. If a wind power generator has a problem or the operator makes a mistake, it is not likely to hurt anyone, or if it does, it is not likely to hurt more than a few people. There are no dangerous emissions from wind power. More and more, wind power will be part of the future of Nebraska.

The sun-blasted wilderness of the US Southwestern deserts may hold the key to our energy future. Stirling Energy Systems (SES) has found a way to turn all of that sunlight and heat into electricity. According to them, their system is twice as efficient as the best photovoltaic cells available.

Stirling Energy Systems builds a system that focuses the heat of the sun onto a proprietary engine that uses a closed hydrogen system to produce electricity.

Where traditional photovoltaic solar generation uses only 15% of the sun’s energy at best, the Stirling system converts 30% of that energy into electricity. The system is composed of a 37-foot diameter dish of mirrors that focus the sun’s light onto a Stirling engine.

The engine contains hydrogen which when heated expands, moving pistons, which turns a flywheel that is used to generate electricity. The hydrogen is not depleted in the process and so never needs to be replenished. The dish turns throughout the day to follow the sun. At night and on cloudy days, you need batteries.

Sandia National Labs Solar Thermal Designated User Facilities

These systems, due to their size and cost, are intended for industrial use only. Don’t expect to put one in your backyard unless you have a spare 58 square feet.

from their website:

Stirling Energy Systems holds two key patents on the solar concentrator system that were initially filed by McDonnell Douglas (by virtue of a merger, now The Boeing Company) to manufacture this solar concentrator system, as well as six of the original solar concentrator systems that were fabricated in the 1980s. SES also acquired all of the intellectual properties, including significant trade secrets regarding technical and manufacturing aspects of the solar concentrator system. SES was granted an licensing agreement with Kockums, a major Swedish defense company, to manufacture, market, and sell the Kockums 4-95 Stirling engines.

Right now a dish costs less than half a million dollars. As production ramps up, one of these units will be in the $150,000 range. A single Stirling set-up can power eight to ten American homes.

Stirling systems also have a minimal impact on the environment. They require antifreeze, lubricant, and someone with a squeegee and plenty of windex to go out there and clean off the mirrors. Actually, they use water, not windex. They might not use a squeegee.

The overall effect on the area around the dish is about the same as planting a tree. A shiny, noisy metal tree. A Stirling engine emits 66 dB of sound – just under the 70 dB at which hearing damage may start. But no smoke!

This method of generating electricity is called “solar thermal” or “concentrating solar” power. A solar thermal farm 100 miles by 100 miles could satisfy 100% of the America’s electricity needs.

BusinessWeek erroneously states that 100 square miles of dishes would satisfy US energy needs. They are not so good at math – it actually comes out to 10,000 square miles.

Is it cost effective? Hard to say. Stirling Energy Systems will not reveal the cost of generation. They do say that the dishes now cost about a quarter million each to produce. Southern California Edison (SCE) has entered a deal with Stirling to buy electricity at “well below the 11.33 cents per kWh” they are now paying for fossil-fuel generated electricity.

However, a 2003 study showed that the average cost of electricity from a Stirling dish would be 15. 37 cents per kWh. They are offsetting this cost by selling dishes.

Stirling has 20-year contracts with Southern California Edison for 500 megawatts and San Diego Gas & Electric for 300-900 megawatts.

Large view of the solar engines from above
High resolution images of the maps

sources

• BusinessWeek, September 12, 2005
• Stirling Energy
• California energy cost study (pdf)
• US DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
• Sandia National Labs Solar Thermal Test Facility