Hybrid Living

It shouldn’t really surprise anyone that the school, whose students manage to build cars overnight inside off-limits campus structures, has a team working on an EV that rivals the Roadster.  And this one can charge in ten minutes.

The team is retrofitting a 2010 Mercury Milan hybrid with an electric engine built for a bus.  Their EV will have a top speed of 100 mph, will crank out 12,000 RPM, and – using a mere 7,905 lithium ion batteries – can drive 200 miles on a single, 350 kwh charge.

The bad news is, 7,905 batteries are expensive – the MIT team spent $80,000 on their battery pack alone.  Also, 350 kwh is a humongous amount of charge; you don’t get that from your outlet, you need special chargers for that.  A lot of EV batteries might be able to charge that quickly if they were hooked up to a mega-sized charger like that.

The good news is that this car isn’t bad for a group of inexperienced students’ first try.  GM, and all the other car companies who want to build EVs for real should take note, and make sure to hire the best and brightest engineers.  Maybe they should just hire these guys.

Via Gas 2.0

Yesterday I alluded to the shortcomings of small wind turbines, and today I read about a device being sold by Honeywell that only reinforces my belief.  I can’t really think of anyone who’d benefit from Honeywell’s Home Wind Turbine.

The device itself is a six foot wide turbine which generates 1,580 Kwh per year, according to Honeywell’s promotional video.  They went on to claim that it will provide you with 15% of your energy needs, and pay for itself in 12-36 months.  In some states.

Let’s examine this, shall we?  The 15% comes from the assumption that the average household uses roughly 10-11,000 Kwh of electricity per year, 1,580 Kwh being roughly 15% of that.  That’s fine, except I have no doubt that the average suburban household uses more than 10-11,000, and those are the only households that would be interested in purchasing this system anyway.

Especially because it costs $4,500.  I don’t understand how they calculate the payback to be so short – the EIA estimates that electricity will cost an average of 12 cents/Kwh in 2010.  1,580 Kwh times 12 cents/Kwh gives you… $189.60 worth of electricity every year, which means you will pay off your system in 23 years.  Even if electricity cost a whopping 30 cents/Kwh, it would still take 9 years.  Unless my math is wrong, in which case please – correct me.

Parallels are often made between the cleantech industry today and the computer industry of, say, the late 80’s and early 90’s.  Perhaps some believe that, just like we used to pay thousands of dollars for computers that are now completely obsolete, people will pay similar prices for wind turbines, solar panels and electric cars at this stage in the game.  I say – they won’t.  Computers were cool, and they made our lives better and easier.  A six foot wind turbine that only produces a trickle of electricity doesn’t affect my life very much, and isn’t all that cool.

Via Gas 2.0

Image Via EarthTronics

The NY Times’ Green Inc today reports on a project called The Green Roadway.  In short, it’s a plan to put lots of solar panels and wind turbines along highways, at the proposed cost of $6.5 million per 10 mile stretch (though government incentives could lop off 65% of that), powering 2,000 homes in the process.

This sounds like a combination of two other ideas that are already in the works: technology that generates energy from moving traffic, and technology that simply takes advantage of roadside space.  

For example, the Oregon Solar Highway project is a plan to line strips of highway with solar panels, to power the lights that illuminate the highway at night.  And Massachusetts wants to put wind turbines on some land next to the highway, as well.  These projects fall into that second category – they utilize the highway’s real estate, but they don’t actually tap into the passing traffic.

On the other hand, some companies want to put piezoelectric generators under roadways, or in speed bumps, to actually generate electricity from moving vehicles.  The jury is still out on whether such technologies are smart ways to capture otherwise wasted energy, or simply ways to “steal” kinetic energy from moving vehicles, forcing them to burn more gas.

In principle, therefore, this is not new – except that the wind turbines will feed off the air produced by passing vehicles (though others have thought of this concept).  The details of the technology are secret, though, and being auctioned off to various US states.  So it’s possible that The Green Roadway’s founders have discovered revolutionary improvements over the aforementioned technologies.  But the plan does seem to rely on small wind (i.e. little turbines, not giant ones), which most experts recognize as… not very effective.

However, it’s important to realize that putting solar panels and wind turbines along the road may achieve deeper and more meaningful goals than simply generating X kilowatts.  Power plants fueled by coal and gas are generally hidden from sight, which helps us trivialize and forget the significance of our energy infrastructure.  By bringing the instruments of clean, renewable energy into the public eye, projects such as The Green Roadway could help establish these technologies in the public consciousness.  Because it’s only real if you see it in front of you.

Via Green Inc.
Image via Flickr

The fact is, a lot of people out there could benefit greatly from solar power.  Government incentives are at an all time high, solar panels are becoming cheaper and better, and solar installation professionals abound.  So why isn’t demand as high as it should be?

Simple: Government incentives vary a great deal from state to state, and many potential customers don’t fully understand how they work.  Some don’t know which panels are best for them.  And who knows how to find a reliable solar installer?  Some might install a great system, but others might build you a $40,000 piece of junk!

So while numerous startups are working on improving PV technology itself, companies like Global Solar Center are trying to make the purchasing process more user-friendly.

GSC (as well as competitors RoofRay and Sungevity) offers a very simple website in which you enter your address.  This takes you to a satellite image of your house (either taken straight from Google Maps, or a similar service), and after filling out some basic information about where you’d want the panels to be, how slanted your roof is, and how much you currently pay for electricity, you get a rough price quote.  

That’s nice, but not as valuable as the other services GSC offers.  There is a section which gives short, to-the-point summaries of all financial incentives available in the state you live in (I didn’t find similar information on the competitors’ sites), which is extremely important.  These incentives can cut the cost of an installation by half or more, but it’s hard to get a straight answer about them from some installers.  Many people who would not even consider a $40,000 project might see a $20,000 project as very feasible.

GSC is also working to make sure you get set up with a qualified installer.  They are doing their research by going into cities, finding out which installers are the best, and signing partnerships with those dealers.  Effectively, they are building a strong reputation for their brand which people can trust and rely upon – just like in any other industry.

Via Greentech Media

Technology companies like Google are always trying to find new ways to make their data centers consume less energy.  It cuts down on one of their biggest costs, and it helps them maintain their cleantech image.

Data centers get very hot, and need to be cooled.  But Google’s data center in Belgium gets all the cooling it needs from two non-electrical sources: non-municipal water brought in from nearby canals, and the surrounding air.  Belgium’s cool climate means that the air outside is usually cold enough to naturally cool the hot computing parts inside, except for about seven days per year, on average.

So here’s the cool part (pun somewhat intended) – when it gets too hot outside, Google will automatically divert all processing away from that data center, to one of their many other data centers around the world.

Just one potential green benefit of cloud computing.  But that’s another post…

Via BoingBoing

The electricity that comes out of a photovoltaic panel is always DC.  Since our buildings tend to use AC electricity, that means that a standard part of every PV solar installation is installing a big inverter to take the DC input from the panels and produce an AC output which is identical to what’s coming from the local power line.

It’s possible, though, to build small inverters (aptly named microinverters) directly into each solar cell or module; instead of feeding all the electricity through a single, large inverter, you feed small streams of electricity through many small inverters.  

Startup GreenRay Solar is getting funding to develop this kind of technology, so that one day a homeowner can buy a solar panel and pretty much install it him/herself.  Right now, you usually have to be a licensed electrician to do the electrical work needed to install conventional panels.  But GreenRay’s panels would be a lot simpler, because they bypass the inverter step.  It still might not be as easy as plugging in an appliance, but it would bring PV installation down a couple notches, within the reach of aspiring DIY-ers.

To answer the unasked question – yes, these solar panels will cost more money.  But, as GreenRay will tell you, microinverters offer additional benefits.  For example, if part of the panel is blocked, it will not affect the other parts.  And, if you are the kind of person who wants to carefully monitor your system’s performance, the microinverter panels will give you more precise and detailed information.  

However, as more and more electric devices require that electricity converted back to DC, and as PV electricity becomes more prevalent, one might wonder why we don’t begin to design DC houses from the start.

Via CNET Green Tech

Right now, everyone who is planning to build electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids pretty much agrees on the fact that the best way to charge them is to plug some kind of cord into the side of the car, the same way we do for cell phones, laptops and mp3 players.

Everyone, that is, except for Nissan.  Nissan wants to follow the route of the electric toothbrush – that is, invent a way for us to charge EVs (or their EVs, at least), using a wireless charger.  Electric toothbrush batteries are refueled by inducing a charge without actually making contact between battery and electricity source.  So, too, Nissan hopes that one day we can park electric cars over a scaled-up version of the same charger, and refuel them without lifting a finger.

However, there’s a reason that we only use induction chargers for the occasional piece of technology such as the toothbrush, and don’t use them for most mobile electronic devices (ok, with the exception of the Palm Pre): they take longer to charge, and they are more expensive and complex than a simple wire plug.

Obviously, though, Nissan’s engineers know all that.  And Nissan is certainly going to be sticking to conventional plugs for now – they are unveiling their 2012 model EV on August 2, and although they claim that it was designed to be compatible with future induction technology, it will be charged by a regular plug.  And Nissan’s partner Renault is busy designing cars to work with Better Place’s system, which most certainly involves a physical cord.  

Rather, Nissan is attempting to look into the future.  Think of it this way – if you told an AOL user in 1995 that the technology existed to access the internet through a cell phone, it would have likely seemed farfetched and overly expensive.  Flash forward to today – it’s still true that the best and fastest internet connections are still tied to PCs, but mobile internet has found its place for people who need to check their email anywhere, and are willing to pay extra for it.  Maybe a light, albeit inefficient-and-more-expensive charge for your EV will find a similar place.

In fact, Nissan’s vision goes beyond just parking spots.  Nissan sees an even wider system of wireless charging, built into the very roads that we drive on (similar to this Toyota concept), so that we can refuel as we drive.  Sound farfetched and inefficient?  Perhaps, but what if you got stuck in a traffic jam, and your battery began to dwindle?  Would you pay a little extra to be able to charge on the go in those situations?

On a related note, here’s an interesting article about charging batteries from Electropaedia.  

Via ABG, Earth2Tech

Right now, everyone who is planning to build electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids pretty much agrees on the fact that the best way to charge them is to plug some kind of cord into the side of the car, the same way we do for cell phones, laptops and mp3 players.

Everyone, that is, except for Nissan.  Nissan wants to follow the route of the electric toothbrush – that is, invent a way for us to charge EVs (or their EVs, at least), using a wireless charger.  Electric toothbrush batteries are refueled by inducing a charge without actually making contact between battery and electricity source.  So, too, Nissan hopes that one day we can park electric cars over a scaled-up version of the same charger, and refuel them without lifting a finger.

However, there’s a reason that we only use induction chargers for the occasional piece of technology such as the toothbrush, and don’t use them for most mobile electronic devices (ok, with the exception of the Palm Pre): they take longer to charge, and they are more expensive and complex than a simple wire plug.

Obviously, though, Nissan’s engineers know all that.  And Nissan is certainly going to be sticking to conventional plugs for now – they are unveiling their 2012 model EV on August 2, and although they claim that it was designed to be compatible with future induction technology, it will be charged by a regular plug.  And Nissan’s partner Renault is busy designing cars to work with Better Place’s system, which most certainly involves a physical cord.  

Rather, Nissan is attempting to look into the future.  Think of it this way – if you told an AOL user in 1995 that the technology existed to access the internet through a cell phone, it would have likely seemed farfetched and overly expensive.  Flash forward to today – it’s still true that the best and fastest internet connections are still tied to PCs, but mobile internet has found its place for people who need to check their email anywhere, and are willing to pay extra for it.  Maybe a light, albeit inefficient-and-more-expensive charge for your EV will find a similar place.

In fact, Nissan’s vision goes beyond just parking spots.  Nissan sees an even wider system of wireless charging, built into the very roads that we drive on (similar to this Toyota concept), so that we can refuel as we drive.  Sound farfetched and inefficient?  Perhaps, but what if you got stuck in a traffic jam, and your battery began to dwindle?  Would you pay a little extra to be able to charge on the go in those situations?

On a related note, here’s an interesting article about charging batteries from Electropaedia.  

Via ABG, Earth2Tech

An interesting op-ed from yesterday’s New York Times discusses clean coal.  I encourage our readers to read the piece themselves, but for those who want the short version, here’s a summary:

1. FutureGen, a federal program to design a zero-emission clean coal power plant is not going to work for two main reasons:

• Zero-emission clean coal technology doesn’t exist, and might take a really long time to get here
• Huge, politically charged federal research projects like these have not historically accomplished anything

2, If the government is going to support some kind of clean coal, it should support IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle), for three reasons:

• IGCC technology already exists
• Once Washington passes a cap-and-trade law of some kind, the cost of carbon will make IGCC cost-competitive
• To generate the same amount of electricity as regular coal plants, IGCC plants use only one third of the coal, which means they naturally cut GHG emissions by two thirds

An important take away message is that when people throw around the term “clean coal”, they may be referring to different things.  Here we see two distinct technologies – one theoretical, nonexistent technology that promises zero emissions by sequestering all the carbon dioxide underground, and another, existing technology which squeezes more power out of less coal by gasifying it first (this also makes it easier to sequester the CO2, but we’re not even getting into that now).

However, though I agree with the author that the government should be worrying about practical solutions rather than (in his words) pie-in-the-sky ideas, I think he overplays the benefits of IGCC.  True, the technology exists, but it’s extremely expensive.  Carbon legislation isn’t going to make it cheaper, it’s just going to make everything else really expensive too.  You can’t really expect every utility to pour money into a technology that, while proven, is still wet behind the ears.

But – and this is the author’s main point – the government can, and it should.

Via NYTimes

If you recall, a big chunk of stimulus money ($25 billion) was made available for car companies who are on the road to developing electric cars.  Both the big auto giants and the lightweight electric startups applied for as much of said money as possible, and the Department of Energy is moments away from announcing the lucky winners.

Although the DOE has made no official announcement, the Detroit Free Press has leaked that the winners are going to be: Tesla, Nissan and Ford (which explains why this particular publication was so eager to spread the good news early).  Let’s take a look at each

Nissan – Lest you worry that US stimulus dollars are funding industry abroad, rest assured; Nissan will have to use the money in-house under the conditions of the loan.  This means we’ll likely be seeing EVs coming out of Smyrna, TN – a town which, despite a modest Wikipedia entry, boasts a Nissan manufacturing plant.  Nissan says it expects to be selling EVs for commercial fleets by 2010 and then start rolling out cars for consumers like us in 2012.

Tesla – Thanks to the $350 million Tesla is expected to get, the Model S may have been saved from death-by-lack of funding.  ABG speculates that Daimler’s recent financial support of the company may have convinced the DEO that Tesla is good, stable investment.  As for how the DOE justifies using the nation’s money to help build a car that most Americans can’t afford (estimated in the ballpark of $50,000)… ok maybe it doesn’t make all the sense in the world, but – like most other EcoGeeks – the DOE appreciates Tesla nonetheless and wants it to succeed.  After all, you can’t kill the company whose cars are the sex symbols of green technology.

Ford – But of course. The stimulus loans would be downright un-American if they left out this icon of American auto ingenuity.  And it would be downright crazy to invest the money into the other two icons of American auto ingenuity – GM and Chrysler – currently wallowing in the mire of bankruptcy… yes, Ford is a good choice.  Not too many details on what they are actually going to produce, but there is talk of a plug in EV of their own.

Via ABG