Friday, March 9, 2012

New LED Produces More Light Than Electricity Consumed

A new 200% efficient LED light has been fabricated in the laboratory. While this sounds like some "free energy" impossible dream, it does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics in any way. And, not only does this new LED produce more light than the electricity it uses to generate it, it cools the environment at the same time!

The LED behaves as a kind of optical heat pump that converts lattice vibrations into infrared photons, cooling its surroundings in the process. When an electron and a hole recombine, a visible photon is released and heat is also generated causing the lattice to vibrate more strongly. Under special circumstances, this generated heat will cause more photons to be released, removing that heat from the LED and producing more light. This is why the new LED is 200% efficient and cools itself in the process.

More information on this new 200% efficient LED can be found here.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

EPA Admits Their Error, Backs Off

In what was promising to be a very hot potato politically, the EPA has backed off its order to shutdown power plants in 10 states. Admitting they had used incorrect data, they proposed to rollback the order today.

This kind of error is exactly why the EPA has effectively shot itself in the foot this year. But, it does suggest that the agency has some severe internal problems if an order can be issued based upon incorrect data which adversely affects the lives of millions of citizens. Perhaps a radical restructuring of the agency is called for.

In this case the Republicans were right to level severe criticism of the agency. Had they gone through with the shutdowns, it would have meant the end of the EPA very quickly. The Democrats should thank the Republicans for cutting the agency off before it committed political suicide.

Putting Excessive Heat to Work

It's not rocket science to put excessive heat to work. The problem is that investors just aren't interested.

However, there appears to be a project about to be built in Arizona which does put excessive heat to work. It's called EnviroMission and it is going to build a solar tower over twice as high as the Empire State Building right in the middle of the desert. Surrounded by a "greenhouse" on the desert floor, the project will heat air using the sun and convectively draw it into the tower, where massive wind turbines will generate electricity as the hot air flows through and rises to the top of the tower. With a rated output of 200 megawatts, it will supply electricity for up to 150,000 average homes in southern California (the contract is already in place supply the output to SoCal). And, although output will drop in the nighttime, retained heat will continue to turn the turbines, generating electricity even when the sun isn't shining. The plant is targetted for 2015 and is designed to last at least 80 years with virtually no cost to maintain. Investors expect payback within 11 years.

The concept has been proven in a pilot project in Spain and was scheduled to be built in Australia. However, it seems that the US is a much better market for the project. More information can be read here.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Vote For Thermopower At Ecomagination

We have submitted Thermopower to the GE Challenge site today.

Voting ends on the 30th of September. Change the world by voting today!

Monday, August 16, 2010

The Oil Conspiracy

IEA: ‘Cheap oil is over’ as demand approaches new record :

The International Energy Agency (IEA) is forecasting world oil demand will set a new record next year when is smashes through 2008's pre-recession high --- and warning that the "era of cheap oil is over."

According to the IEA's latest Oil Market Report, published August 11, global demand will reach 86.6 million barrels per day in 2010, and then 87.9 million barrels per day in 2011, assuming a continuing global economic recovery. This means demand is set to pass the all-time high of 86.9 million barrels per day established in 2008 before the global economic downturn.

The figure has been given significance by those that say oil peaked midway through 2008. Peak oil refers to the time of maximum production --- the high point of the oil output bell chart, after which, as geologist M King Hubbert showed, output will diminish even though much oil remains to be extracted. If oil did peak at 86.9 million barrels per day, then demand would be expected to overtake supply early in 2011. (Personally, I don't believe oil has peaked --- but this will soon be put to the test.)

Another significant figure bandied around relates to oil's mid-2008 price spike: it traded at $147 a barrel in July of that year. People that believe oil peaked will tell you this was a simple matter of supply and demand, while Opec has all along blamed speculators for pushing the prices up. Another factor, as reported at the time by Reuters, was the then tension between Israel, the US and Iran, including Iranian missile tests and rumoured Israeli air force drills in Iranian airspace that "left the oil markets worried about a potential supply disruption."

There were clearly many market forces pushing oil prices up at the time --- so, unlike more accomplished peak oil writers, I don't see oil's passage through the 86.9 million-barrels-per-day threshold as guaranteeing triple digit figures. Anything is possible, of course, but to my mind the key figure to watch is Opec's spare capacity. This is the amount of mothballed production that can quickly come online to cushion against oil supply and demand shocks. Periods of tight capacity are associated with high oil prices; zero capacity indicates peak oil, or at least supply failing to keep up with demand.

As long as the Oil Conspiracy continues, these arch criminals will have a stranglehold on the world.

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Why is society not acting on climate change?

John Holdren, chief science adviser to US President Barack Obama, lamented the recent failure of Democrats in the US Senate to push forward legislation on global warming, in a speech to the Ecological Society of America conference in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, yesterday:

He told the audience that the Senate’s failure to act was particularly disappointing during a summer in which the planet has experienced record heat, drought and wildfires.

“Societies are not taking the actions that the science indicates are needed and the technology indicates are possible. It’s important to understand why not,” he says.

He says he believes the hold up is “rooted in human behaviour” and there is an urgent need to involve social science and humanities researchers in questions on climate change to understand how to make progress.

Holdren dismissed concerns that last November’s “climategate” controversy had damaged the scientific evidence supporting climate change. Rather, he said, the incident showed that “climate scientists were human too”, and that they “resist sharing data with those they believe have no interest in truth-seeking”. He added that Obama understood this.

Holdren also warned that the world was failing to meet the Millennium Development Goals which aim to end the poverty of people living the developing world by 2015. In particular, he said “we are not remotely on track to end hunger” and that the world was “doing even worse” on meeting its targets to conserve biodiversity and stop animals and plants from going extinct.

He called for socio-political and environmental factors, such as competition for land and water, to carry greater weight in development efforts, saying they still play second fiddle to economic considerations.

“In the past, development has mainly referred to strengthening the economic pillar. But development must mean improving all three,” he said.

Let's get one thing straight: We have the technology to solve the climate problem. We just don't have the money to implement it. And, we don't have the money because the big vested interests who pay your salary are stopping it. There's no mystery here. Get real, guy.

We applied four times for an Energy Dept grant to solve the climate problem under the ARRA. We asked for $5 million over 18 months. Surely, a pittance to a government that spent a trillion dollars creating such wonderful public monuments as a tunnel to nowhere or a sidewalk to a ditch. But, each time, your bureacrats, who are probably on the payroll of BP, found some rationalization why we didn't qualify. They never argued that the science was wrong. No, they gave us answers like, "Not transformational." What? How do you answer that?

It's clear that you aren't in the loop, Holdren. Why don't you try asking your boss Obama why? The answer will probably be that we didn't offer the highest bribe.