Friday, November 30, 2007

Solar vehicles



















Development of a practical solar powered car has been an engineering goal since the 1980s. The center of this development is the World Solar Challenge, a biannual solar-powered car race in which teams from universities and enterprises compete over 3,021 km (1,877 mi) across central Australia from Darwin to Adelaide. In 1987, when it was founded, the winner's average speed was 67 km/h (42 mph)[76] The 2007 race included a new challenge class using cars with an upright seating position and which, with little modification, could be a practical proposition for sustainable transport. The winning car averaged 90.87 km/h (56.46 mph).

Helios UAV in flight

















Helios, named for the Greek sun god, was a prototype solar-powered unmanned aircraft. AeroVironment, Inc. developed the vehicle under NASA's Environmental Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology (ERAST) program. On 13 August, 2001, it set an unofficial world record for sustained altitude by a winged aircraft. It sustained flight above 29,250 m (95,965 ft) for 40 minutes and reached 29,524 m (96,864 ft) altitude in the process.

A solar balloon is a black balloon that is filled with ordinary air. As sunlight shines on the balloon, the air inside is heated and expands, causing an upward buoyancy force, much like an artificially-heated hot air balloon. Some solar balloons are large enough for human flight, but usage is limited to the toy market as the surface-area to payload-weight ratio is rather high.

The first practical solar boat was constructed in 1975 in England.[78] By 1995, solar passenger boats began appearing and are now used extensively.[79] The first crossing of the Atlantic Ocean by a solar-powered boat was in the winter of 2006/2007 by the catamaran sun21.

Solar sails are a proposed form of spacecraft propulsion using large membrane mirrors. Radiation pressure is small and decreases by the square of the distance from the sun, but unlike rockets, solar sails require no fuel. Although the thrust is small compared to rockets, it continues as long as the sun shines and the sail is deployed and in the frictionless vacuum of space significant speeds can eventually be achieved.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

BMW Hydrogen 7 Prototype

  • Looks like: BMW 7 Series
  • Defining characteristics: Burns gas or hydrogen gas
  • Ridiculous features: Requires liquid hydrogen, which is rarer than hydrogen gas
  • Chance of being mass-produced: Up to 100 will be built; 25 percent for U.S.
If you don't sweat the details, it might seem like hydrogen cars are a reality in the U.S. market. The important details are that the fuel-cell cars presently in the hands of consumers are on lease and worth roughly $1 million each, and that the BMW Hydrogen 7 isn't a fuel-cell vehicle. Rather than using hydrogen to generate electricity in a fuel cell, it burns hydrogen gas in its conventional V-12 engine. It also can burn gasoline at the flip of a dashboard switch.

Hydrogen gas burns cleanly, producing only water vapor, which is the claim made for fuel cells, too. That's not really the point here. Neither is cost; burning hydrogen currently costs more than burning traditional gas. The point behind burning hydrogen in an engine is to give energy and distribution companies another incentive to provide hydrogen. The circle is vicious: Automakers don't want to build cars for which there's little fuel, and fuel companies don't want to provide a fuel that no one will use. Another use for hydrogen gas can only help build the infrastructure for our inevitable switch to fuel-cell/electric power.

Makes sense? It does until you find out that the Hydrogen 7 — a 7 Series sedan equipped with two tanks and two fuel systems — needs to be filled with liquid, not gaseous, hydrogen, which is even rarer. There are 31 hydrogen gas stations in the country, 23 of which are in California. Only a few dispense liquid hydrogen, but they all receive and store their hydrogen in liquid form. BMW says it's hoping to convince these outlets to dispense liquid hydrogen, too.

A pressurized hydrogen gas tank wouldn't give a car enough range. The Hydrogen 7's 125-mile range relies on liquid that's converted to gas for burning. A full gasoline tank adds 300 miles for a total of more than 400 miles at cruising speeds. BMW says the acceleration is the same whether the car is running on hydrogen or gasoline. That said, the zero to 60 mph time is more than 9 seconds — far longer than a conventional 7 Series with a V-8 or V-12 engine.

The other tradeoffs include trunk space, which is cut in half to accommodate the hydrogen tank, and the odd nature of liquid hydrogen overall. The liquid form is uncommon because it has to be kept at cryogenic temperatures to prevent its evaporation. Storage facilities require big-time refrigeration. The Hydrogen 7 uses a superinsulated storage tank. Its 1-inch-thick insulation is equivalent to 17 meters of Styrofoam, according to BMW. It could keep coffee hot for three months. Unfortunately, liquid hydrogen's requirements are greater. When the car isn't using the fuel, it builds pressure. When that pressure gets up to 87 psi — after roughly one day unused — it starts to "boil off," to vent harmlessly, mixed with oxygen by a catalytic converter to create water vapor. The problem is that it can boil off half your fuel in eight days.

Compared to fuel-cell cars, the Hydrogen 7 is relatively cheap, but BMW won't be selling it. Like the Honda FCX fuel-cell car, the BMW will be leased, to VIPs of the company's choosing.

Monday, November 26, 2007

Hydrogen Cars

Hydrogen cars are not only the future, they are here, now. When hydrogen cars become the status quo, the U. S. can lessen its dependence upon foreign oil, achieve lower prices at the fuel pumps and cut down on the greenhouse gases that produce global warming. The future of hydrogen cars is not a pipe dream, as there are already many hydrogen cars on the road. California and Japan have many hydrogen cars being used as fleet vehicles now.

In 2005, Honda leased the first commercial hydrogen car to a family in Redondo Beach, California, pictured above.

For the past 28 years, the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) has been conducting research on hydrogen fuel cells for use in transportation, industry and residential use. According to the LANL, "Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Research at Los Alamos has made significant technological advances in Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) fuel cells, Direct Methanol Fuel Cells (DMFC), and related technologies such as the electrolyzer (a fuel cell in reverse, liberating hydrogen from electricity and pure water)."

Unlike many of the hybrid and "green" cars currently on the market, hydrogen cars offer the promise of zero emission technology, where the only byproduct from the cars is water vapor. Current fossil-fuel burning vehicles emit all sorts of pollutants such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, ozone and microscopic particulate matter. Hybrids and other green cars address these issues to a large extent but only hydrogen cars hold the promise of zero emission of pollutants. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that fossil-fuel automobiles emit 1 ½ billion tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere each year and going to hydrogen-based transportation would all but eliminate this.

Not only that, hydrogen cars will lessen the United States' dependence upon foreign oil. The so-called "hydrogen hyghway" will mean less dependence upon OPEC, the big U. S. oil companies, oil refinery malfunctions and breakdowns and less resistance from oil-selling nations like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia or from hostile nations who would rather sell elsewhere. Consumers will finally get a break from the never-ending rising prices at the gasoline pumps.

President Bush has already allocated approximately $2 billion in hydrogen highway research. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is pushing to get 200 hydrogen filling stations built by 2010 stretching from Vancouver, British Columbia, all the way down to Baja, California. Since Californians buy one-fifth of the nation's cars, the new hydrogen car technology could simply replace the current gasoline engine automobiles in what is called "disruptive technology" where something so innovative comes along it simply replaces the old technology very quickly.

Then again, a more likely scenario is that dual-fuel automotive systems will be developed that can run on either gasoline or hydrogen as the hydrogen infrastructure is being developed. The conversion from gasoline-powered internal combustion engines to hydrogen powered combustion engines is agreed upon by most scientists and engineers to be a particularly easy transition and would buy time for hydrogen fuel cell cars to be fully adapted.

But, hydrogen cars are not isolated to those that burn the fuel in internal combustion engines. There are more hydrogen fuel cell cars being built currently than any other kind. Let's also not forget about hydrogen-on-demand vehicles that are either using a hydrogen compound or electrolyzing water to create hydrogen, avoiding the compressed or liquid hydrogen refueling scenario altogether. And, what about adapting hydrogen peroxide for fuel in car since it is currently being used in racecars and jet packs as a propellant?

Hydrogen cars are the future, so why not take a test drive of this website right now and see what you'll be driving a few short years from now. The hydrogen economy is just around the bend. Will you be ready?

Sunday, November 25, 2007

All about solar panels

1. Why should I consider using solar?

When the sun shines, you get power! No muss. No fuss. It's absolutely silent, and it's pretty much maintenance-free. All I (Libbie) do aboard s/v HOTWIRE is use a damp sponge or rag once in a while to wipe off dust, salt, and bird poop!

Where we are now, I clean ours a couple of times a year. When we were downwind from the cement plant at Puerto la Cruz, Venezuela, I cleaned them much more often. The cleaner the surface, the better it works for you.


2. Which kind should I buy?

There are basically 3 technologies to choose from:

  • monocrystal (high output) -- the most efficient
  • polycrystal (high output) -- almost as efficient as monocrystal
  • thin film / amorphous (heat- and shade-tolerant) -- less efficient

Which type you should use depends on where you plan to install it. They all perform their best in full sun.

3. Where should I install solar on my boat?

In order of choice, we find that the best place aboard is high & aft, above davits or on top of an arch, where shadows are less likely (we have the mounting hardware for you).

If you can put solar up there, by all means go with a high output technology! Get the biggest bang for your buck! (Just don't put solar under a wind generator or radar shadow. If you must, I'd recommend a shade tolerant technology.)

A fixed mount above a bimini works well if there is bimini surface aft of the boom. Again, go with high output. And you get the added advantage that the solar modules shadow the bimini and keep the cockpit cooler! (Contact us for design advice for increasing bimini strength.)

Another choice is on a rail at or near the stern. If there will be few shadows, choose a high output technology. If shadows are likely most of the time, go with a shade tolerant module.

Above the dodger, you have a couple of options:

  • A high output module on each side of the boom will usually guarantee that at least one of them will be in full sun; and at anchor, you can settle the boom to one side or the other for maximum sun exposure. If one solar cell is fully shadowed, you're down to 50% power output. If a whole row of cells is shadowed, you're getting nothing.
  • A shade tolerant module on each side of the boom will give you charging capability even when a portion of the surface is shadowed. The percentage of output is equal to the percentage of surface exposed to sun. When 40% is shadowed and 60% is in the sun, you'll get 60% of the rated capacity of output.

4. What makes the monocrystal and polycrystal output drop so much in shadows?

The high output modules have individual cells, and each cell can be thought of as a small battery. When you shade one cell, it's like taking a battery out of the (series) circuit. Think of the old Christmas tree lights - when one went out they all did. Thin film modules don't have individual cells, it's more like one big cell.

The larger high output modules also have a bypass diode so that the cells are essentially divided into two separate circuits. When one cell in one of the circuits is shadowed, that whole circuit is down. But because the disabled circuit can be bypassed, the other circuit can still function.

5. Why would anybody buy such shade-sensitive stuff?

They're much higher output than shade-tolerant modules. Shell has a 55 watt monocrystal module that's in the exact same frame as their 40 watt shade-tolerant module! On a sailboat, space is an issue. I want more power from the space the module will occupy!

6. If monocrystal is the most efficient, why would I even think about buying polycrystalline?

They come in different shapes and sizes. The difference in efficiency is small enough that available space is the more important issue here. Measure your space and choose the module that fits best.

The most popular polycrystaline (Kyocera) tend to be more square, while the most popular mono-crystal (Shell) tend to be more rectangular.

Also, some polycrystaline modules such as those made by Solara, are thin, lightweight and flexible. They designed to be glued or screwed to the deck of your boat, giving you more options in positioning and mounting panels.

7. What's the difference between solar cell, solar panel, and solar module?

The solar cell is one small (approx. 4"x4") area on the surface of a solar module. The module is made up of many solar cells set into a frame for support. A solar panel is several solar modules installed together on a rack. Put some racks together and you have a solar array.

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Hydrogen fuel cells

What Is A Fuel Cell?

In principle, a fuel cell operates like a battery. Unlike a battery, a fuel cell does not run down or require recharging. It will produce energy in the form of electricity and heat as long as fuel is supplied.

A fuel cell consists of two electrodes sandwiched around an electrolyte. Oxygen passes over one electrode and hydrogen over the other, generating electricity, water and heat.

A fuel cell produces electricity.

The fuel cell is similar to a battery. It produces electricity using chemicals. The chemicals are usually very simple, often just hydrogen and oxygen. In this case the hydrogen is the "fuel" that the fuel cell uses to make electricity.

Another very important difference is that fuel cells do not run down like batteries. As long as the fuel and oxygen is supplied to the cell it will keep producing electricty for ever.

The oxygen needed by a fuel cell is usually simply obtained from air.

Although the majority of fuel cells use hydrogen as the fuel, some fuel cells work off methane, and a few use liquid fuels such as methanol.

Fuel cells that use hydrogen can be thought of as devices that do the reverse of the well known experiment where passing an electric current through water splits it up into hydrogen and oxygen. In the fuel cell hydrogen and oxygen are joined together to produce water and electricty.

Fuel cells can be made in a huge range of sizes. They can be used to produce quite small amounts of electric power, for devices such as portable computers or radio transmitters, right up to very high powers for electric power stations.

Hydrogen fuel is fed into the "anode" of the fuel cell. Oxygen (or air) enters the fuel cell through the cathode. Encouraged by a catalyst, the hydrogen atom splits into a proton and an electron, which take different paths to the cathode. The proton passes through the electrolyte. The electrons create a separate current that can be utilized before they return to the cathode, to be reunited with the hydrogen and oxygen in a molecule of water.

A fuel cell system which includes a "fuel reformer" can utilize the hydrogen from any hydrocarbon fuel - from natural gas to methanol, and even gasoline. Since the fuel cell relies on chemistry and not combustion, emissions from this type of a system would still be much smaller than emissions from the cleanest

Thursday, November 22, 2007

THE CAR THAT MAKES ITS OWN FUEL












A unique system that can produce Hydrogen inside a car using common metals such as Magnesium and Aluminum was developed by an Israeli company. The system solves all of the obstacles associated with the manufacturing, transporting and storing of hydrogen to be used in cars. When it becomes commercial in a few years time, the system will be incorporated into cars that will cost about the same as existing conventional cars to run, and will be completely emission free.

As President Bush urges Americans to cut back on the use of oil in wake of the recent surge in prices, more and more people are looking for more viable alternatives to the use of petroleum as the main fuel for the automotive industry. IsraCast recently covered the idea developed at the Weizmann Institute to use pure Zinc to produce Hydrogen using solar power. Now, a different solution has been developed by an Israeli company called Engineuity. Amnon Yogev, one of the two founders of Engineuity, and a retired Professor of the Weizmann Institute, suggested a method for producing a continuous flow of Hydrogen and steam under full pressure inside a car. This method could also be used for producing hydrogen for fuel cells and other applications requiring hydrogen and/or steam.

The Hydrogen car Engineuity is working on will use metals such as Magnesium or Aluminum which will come in the form of a long coil. The gas tank in conventional vehicles will be replaced by a device called a Metal-Steam combustor that will separate Hydrogen out of heated water. The basic idea behind the technology is relatively simple: the tip of the metal coil is inserted into the Metal-Steam combustor together with water where it will be heated to very high temperatures. The metal atoms will bond to the Oxygen from the water, creating metal oxide. As a result, the Hydrogen molecules are free, and will be sent into the engine alongside the steam. The solid waste product of the process, in the form of metal oxide, will later be collected in the fuel station and recycled for further use by the metal industry.

Refuelling the car based on this technology will also be remarkably simple. The vehicle will contain a mechanism for rolling the metal wire into a coil during the process of fuelling and the spent metal oxide, which was produced in the previous phase, will be collected from the car by vacuum suction.

Beside the obvious advantages of the system, such as the inexpensive and abundant fuel, the production of Hydrogen on-the-go and the zero emission engine, the system is also more efficient than other Hydrogen solutions. The main reason for this is the improved usage of heat (steam) inside the system that brings that overall performance level of the vehicle to that of a conventional car. In an interview, Professor Yogev told IsraCast that a car based on Engineuity's system will be able to travel about the same distance between refueling as an equivalent conventional car. The only minor drawback, which also limits the choice of possible metal fuel sources, is the weight of the coil. In order for the Hydrogen car to be able to travel as far as a conventional car it needs a metal coil three-times heavier than an equivalent petrol tank. Although this sound like a lot in most cars this will add up to about 100kg (220 pounds) and should not affect the performance of the car.

Engineuity is currently in the advanced stages of the incubator program of the Chief Scientist in Israel, and is seeking investors that will allow it to develop a full scale prototype. Given the proper investment the company should be able to develop the prototype in about three years. The move to Hydrogen based cars using Engineuity's technology will require only relatively minor changes from the car manufacturer's point of view. Since the modified engine can be produced using existing production lines, removing the need for investment in new infrastructures (the cost of which is estimated at billions of dollars), the new Hydrogen cars would not be more expensive. Although Engineuity's Hydrogen car will not be very different from existing conventional cars, the company is not currently planning an upgrade kit for existing cars but is concentrating on building a system that will be incorporated into new car models.

Possibly the most appealing aspect of the system is the running cost. According to Yogev, the overall running cost of the system should be equal to that of conventional cars today. Given the expected surge in oil prices in the near future Engineuity's Hydrogen car could not come too soon.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Fuel cell design

In essence, a fuel cell works by catalysis, separating the component electrons and protons of the reactant fuel, and forcing the electrons to travel through a circuit, hence converting them to electrical power. Another catalytic process takes the electrons back in, combining them with the protons and the oxidant to form waste products (typically simple compounds like water and carbon dioxide).

In the archetypal hydrogen–oxygen proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) design, a proton-conducting polymer membrane, (the electrolyte), separates the anode and cathode sides. This was called a "solid polymer electrolyte fuel cell" (SPEFC) in the early 1970s, before the proton exchange mechanism was well-understood. (Notice that "polymer electrolyte membrane" and "proton exchange membrane" result in the same acronym)

On the anode side, hydrogen diffuses to the anode catalyst where it later dissociates into protons and electrons. The protons are conducted through the membrane to the cathode, but the electrons are forced to travel in an external circuit (supplying power) because the membrane is electrically insulating. On the cathode catalyst, oxygen molecules react with the electrons (which have traveled through the external circuit) and protons to form water — in this example, the only waste product, either liquid or vapor.

In addition to this pure hydrogen type, there are hydrocarbon fuels for fuel cells, including diesel, methanol (see: direct-methanol fuel cell) and chemical hydrides. The waste products with these types of fuel are carbon dioxide and water. Construction of a low temperature PEMFC: Bipolar plate as electrode with in-milled gas channel structure, fabricated from conductive plastics (enhanced with carbon nanotubes for more conductivity); Porous carbon papers; reactive layer, usually on the polymer membrane applied; polymer membrane.


Construction of a low temperature PEMFC: Bipolar plate as electrode with in-milled gas channel structure, fabricated from conductive plastics (enhanced with carbon nanotubes for more conductivity); Porous carbon papers; reactive layer, usually on the polymer membrane applied; polymer membrane.


Condensation of water produced by a PEMFC on the air channel wall. The gold wire around the cell ensures the collection of electric current.

The materials used in fuel cells differ by type. The electrode–bipolar plates are usually made of metal, nickel or carbon nanotubes, and are coated with a catalyst (like platinum, nano iron powders or palladium) for higher efficiency. Carbon paper separates them from the electrolyte. The electrolyte could be ceramic or a membrane.

A typical PEM fuel cell produces a voltage from 0.6 V to 0.7 V at full rated load. Voltage decreases as current increases, due to several factors:

* Activation loss
* Ohmic loss (voltage drop due to resistance of the cell components and interconnects)
* Mass transport loss (depletion of reactants at catalyst sites under high loads, causing rapid loss of voltage)

To deliver the desired amount of energy, the fuel cells can be combined in series and parallel circuits, where series yield higher voltage, and parallel allows a stronger current to be drawn. Such a design is called a fuel cell stack. Further, the cell surface area can be increased, to allow stronger current from each cell.

Fuel cell design issues

* Costs. In 2002, typical cells had a catalyst content of US$1000 per kilowatt of electric power output. The goal is to reduce the cost in order to compete with current market technologies including gasoline internal combustion engines. Many companies are working on techniques to reduce cost in a variety of ways including reducing the amount of platinum needed in each individual cell. Ballard Power Systems have experiments with a catalyst enhanced with carbon silk which allows a 30% reduction (1 mg/cm² to 0.7 mg/cm²) in platinum usage without reduction in performance.
* The production costs of the PEM (proton exchange membrane). The Nafion® membrane currently costs €400/m². This, and the Toyota PEM and 3M PEM membrane can be replaced with the ITM Power membrane (a hydrocarbon polymer), resulting in a price of ~€4/m². in 2005 Ballard Power Systems announced that its fuel cells will use Solupor®, a porous polyethylene film patented by DSM.
* Water management (in PEMFCs). In this type of fuel cell, the membrane must be hydrated, requiring water to be evaporated at precisely the same rate that it is produced. If water is evaporated too quickly, the membrane dries, resistance across it increases, and eventually it will crack, creating a gas "short circuit" where hydrogen and oxygen combine directly, generating heat that will damage the fuel cell. If the water is evaporated too slowly, the electrodes will flood, preventing the reactants from reaching the catalyst and stopping the reaction. Methods to manage water in cells are being developed by fuel cell companies and academic research labs.

* Flow control. Just as in a combustion engine, a steady ratio between the reactant and oxygen is necessary to keep the fuel cell operating efficiently.
* Temperature management. The same temperature must be maintained throughout the cell in order to prevent destruction of the cell through thermal loading. This is particularly challenging as the 2H2 + O2 -> 2H20 reaction is highly exothermic, so a large quantity of heat is generated within the fuel cell.
* Durability, service life, and special requirements for some type of cells. Stationary applications typically require more than 40,000 hours of reliable operation at a temperature of -35 °C to 40 °C, while automotive fuel cells require a 5,000 hour lifespan (the equivalent of 150,000 miles) under extreme temperatures. Automotive engines must also be able to start reliably at -30 °C and have a high power to volume ratio (typically 2.5 kW per liter).
* Limited carbon monoxide tolerance of the anode.

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Peugeot 207 EPURE fuel cell concept car tipped as future model


September 9, 2006 Peugeot is clearly talking up its latest Paris Motor Show concept car as a glimpse of a future 207 model and the prospect is very exciting – the 207 EPURE concept car uses an electric motor combined with PSA Peugeot Citroen Group’s new 20 kW GENEPAC experimental fuel cell which has been designed in partnership with the French AEC (Atomic Energy Commission). The electricity produced by the fuel cell is used to provide extra power and operating range to the lithium-ion battery and hence the 50kW electric motor. The combination fuel cell - electric powertrain gives the 207 EPURE a range of around 218 miles while still providing a maximum speed of 81 mph. The pearl white exterior of the 207 EPURE highlights the purity of the concept car’s lines while strengthening the ecological credentials of the technology that powers it.

The fascia panel is covered entirely with white leather, as is most of the passenger compartment: the detailing, the trim on all four seats, and even the steering column controls under the steering wheel. Touches of “absinthe green”, as used for the interior floor carpet, are subtly interspersed throughout the passenger compartment, particularly in the form of discreet highlighting on the fascia panel, the door panels, the rear of the front seats and the head restraints.

The instrument panel provides all necessary information for monitoring the battery charge level and the quantity of stored hydrogen onboard, while the colour multi function display mounted in the centre console displays the flow of power between the electric motor, the battery and the fuel cell.

From the purity of its colour with the only emissions being water, the “207 EPURE” not only protects the environment but will also ensure the pleasure of Peugeot “open top” motoring remains for many years to come.

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Volvo multi-fuel prototype car - optimised for five different fuels

Optimised for five different fuels
The Volvo Multi-Fuel is a five-cylinder, 2.0-litre prototype car (200 bhp) that runs on five different fuels; hythane (10% hydrogen and 90% methane), biomethane, natural gas (CNG), bioethanol E85 (85% bioethanol and 15% petrol) and petrol. The new concept is introduced at the Michelin Challenge Bibendum 2006 and is one of its kind.
– The whole car is optimised for high performance, driving on any of the five different fuels, says Mats Morén, Project Leader Engine at Volvo Car Corporation.
The Multi-Fuel is just as safe as all Volvo vehicles, with the added bonus of being exceptionally clean. One of its benefits is that combustion of pure renewable fuels like hydrogen, biomethane and bioethanol gives negligible net contribution of fossil carbon dioxide.
– It is a first step towards a hydrogen powered society, says Mats Morén. Perhaps we can develop the system even further, to run on a higher blend in the future.



Independent of local infrastructure
Volvo Car Corporation believes that the road to the future is not one but many. No renewable fuel type can alone replace the fossil fuels of today. Since local conditions vary, different markets need engines for different alternative fuels, together with cleaner conventional ones. With this in mind, Volvo Car Corporation has developed the Multi-Fuel, a prototype car that can be powered by five different fuel types, thus be driven on the energy source at hand – anywhere in the world.
– The idea is to make use of the fuels that are produced locally, says Mats Morén. This means that less fuel needs to be transported between continents, and you can fill up the car on the fuel that is available wherever you are.

Reinforced gaseous fuel tank
The Multi-Fuel vehicle contains one large and two smaller tanks of totally 98 litres for gaseous fuels (hythane, biomethane and CNG), and one 29-litre tank for liquid fuels (bioethanol E85 and petrol).
– The small gaseous fuel tanks are made of steel, whereas the large tank has a durable, gas tight aluminium liner, reinforced with high performance carbon fibre composite and an exterior layer of hardened fibre-glass composite, says Mats Morén.

The fuel tanks are fitted neatly under the luggage compartment floor, which means that full loading capacity is preserved. Two fuel fillers are used to fill up all five fuel types, one for gaseous and one for liquid fuels. The engine automatically adjusts itself to the right blend of gaseous or liquid fuels. To switch between fuel types, the driver simply presses a button.

High performance on any fuel with maintained fuel-efficiency
The whole Multi-Fuel vehicle – the engine, the tanks, the transmission and the fuel system – is optimised for the five different fuels. It can be started directly on gas, which is unique for this system. The Multi-Fuel has a motor effect of 200 bhp and accelerates quickly up to speed, 0–100 km/h in 8.7 seconds. This makes the car more responsive and smooth to drive.
– The Multi-Fuel is turbo charged to achieve high performance on any of the five different fuel types, says Mats Morén. That makes it great fun to drive and we are very proud of its performance.

Low regulated and unregulated emissions
The Multi-Fuel is remarkably clean and meets the emission standards for Euro 4 and the proposed levels for Euro 5. An alternative catalyst system has also been developed to meet the tough demands on extremely low tailpipe emissions for PZEV/SULEV on the US market. The vehicle has two catalysts, one close coupled to the engine that lowers initial start emissions, and one under the floor for reduced high-speed emissions. The double catalysts and advanced engine control system lead to very low emissions. High-temperature materials in the exhaust manifold and turbo allow extremely high exhaust gas temperatures of up to 1050 °C. This enables the car to run cleaner, accelerate quicker and operate smoother at higher speed.
– I love this concept, says Mats Morén, a turbo charged engine with high performance, low fuel consumption and low emissions. On top of that it has a brilliant tank installation and can be run on a multitude of fuels – all wrapped in one beautiful car.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

CLEAN ENERGY

renewable energy basics

No single solution can meet our society's future energy needs. The answer lies instead in a family of diverse energy technologies that share a common thread: they do not deplete our natural resources or destroy our environment.

Renewable energy technologies tap into natural cycles and systems, turning the ever-present energy around us into usable forms. The movement of wind and water, the heat and light of the sun, heat in the ground, the carbohydrates in plants—all are natural energy sources that can supply our needs in a sustainable way. Because they are homegrown, renewables can also increase our energy security and create local jobs.


clean energy policies

We can increase our reliance on renewable energy by enacting supportive federal and state policies, reducing barriers to the adoption of renewable technologies, and by encouraging individual, business, and government purchasers of energy to use renewables.

UCS is working for sustainable energy policies at both the federal and state levels. Much of our current work in this area has focused on renewable electricity standards and other policy incentives to speed the development of renewable technologies and decrease our dependence on fossil fuels.

UCS pays close attention to scientific research and government policies relevant to clean energy issues. We make comments, write reports and briefings, and send letters to help shape policies that will move us toward a cleaner energy future.

energy efficiency

An important strategy for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is improving energy efficiency (that is, getting more use out of the electricity we already generate). Energy efficiency measures such as advanced industrial processes and high-efficiency motors, lighting, and appliances have the potential to provide significant reductions in electricity use while saving consumers money in the long run.

Policies that support improved efficiency include federal appliance and equipment efficiency standards, enhanced building codes, tax incentives, and industrial energy efficiency measures.


fossil fuels

Fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—are America's primary source of energy, accounting for more than 70 percent of current U.S. electricity generation. However, the extraction and burning of these fuels contributes to global warming, causes cancer and other chronic health problems, and degrades valuable land and water resources.

In fact, fossil fuel-fired electricity generation is the single greatest source of air pollution in the United States, and power plants are the leading U.S. source of carbon dioxide emissions—a primary contributor to global warming. Fossil fuels also produce nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, hydrocarbons, dust, soot, smoke, and other suspended matter.

To decrease our dependence on fossil fuels while improving human health and environmental sustainability, UCS engages in analysis and advocacy that encourages the implementation of energy efficiency measures and increased use of renewable energy technologies.

The energy world is buzzing with a level of excitement not seen in decades. Prices for gasoline and natural gas have shocked consumers. The costs of our dependence on oil are hitting home. In the 2006 elections, energy security, affordability, and the environmental effects of energy policy were higher in voter’s minds' than ever before.

The issues are pressing. Fortunately, there are many possible solutions. Renewable energy has found new champions in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street. Farmers see themselves as growing fuel as well as food and fiber. The debate about climate change is over and now we can focus on the solutions. All these tributaries have swelled interest in generating clean, home-grown energy. But after all the slogans and visions, what, in practical terms, shall we do to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels and realize the promise of renewable energy?

Energy from the Sun

Solar power as it is dispersed on the planet and radiated back to space. Values are in PW =1015 W


Solar power as it is dispersed on the planet and radiated back to space. Values are in PW =1015 W
Annual average insolation at the top of Earth's atmosphere (top) and at the surface (bottom). The black dots represent the land area required to replace the total primary energy supply with electricity from solar cells.

Annual average insolation at the top of Earth's atmosphere (top) and at the surface (bottom). The black dots represent the land area required to replace the total primary energy supply with electricity from solar cells.

Earth receives 174 petawats of incoming solar radiation (insolation) at the upper atmosphre at any given time. When it meets the atmosphere, 6 percent of the insolation is rflected and 16 percent is aborbed. Average atmospheric conditions (clouds, dust, pollutants) further reduce insolation traveling through the atmosphere by 20 percent due to reflection and 3 percent via absorption. These atmospheric conditions not only reduce the quantity of energy reaching the Earth's surface, but also diffuse approximately 20 percent of the incoming light and filter portions of its spectrum. After passing through the Earth's atmosphere, approximately half the insolation is in the visile electromagnetic spectrum with the other half mostly in the infrared spectrum (a small part is ultraviolet radiation).

The absorption of solar energy by atmospheric convection (sensible heat transport) and evaporation and condensation of water vapor (latent heat transport) drives the winds and the water cycle. Upon reaching the surface, sunlight is absorbed by the oceans, land masses and plants. The energy captured in the oceans drives the thermohalyne cycle. As such, solar energy is ultimately responsible for temperature-driven ocean curents such as the thermohaline cycle and wind-driven currents such as the Gulf stream. The energy absorbed by the earth, in conjunction with that recycled by the greenhouse effect, warms the surface to an average temperature of approximately 14 °C. The small portion of solar energy captured by plants and other phototrophs is converted to chemical energy via photosinthesys. All the food we eat, wood we build with, and fossil fuels we use are products of photosynthesis. The flows and stores of solar energy in the environment are vast in comparison to human energy needs.

  • The total solar energy available to the earth is approximately 3850 zettajoules (ZJ) per year.
  • Oceans absorb approximately 285 ZJ of solar energy per year.
  • Winds can theoretically supply 6 ZJ of energy per year.
  • Biomass captures approximately 1.8 ZJ of solar energy per year.
  • Worldwide energy consumption was 0.471 ZJ in 2004.

The upper map (right) shows how solar radiation at the top of the earth's atmosphere varies with latitude, while the lower map shows annual average ground-level insolation. For example, in North America, the average insolation at ground level over an entire year (including nights and periods of cloudy weather) lies between 125 and 375 W/m² (3 to 9 kWh/m²/day). At present, photovoltaic panels typically convert about 15 percent of incident sunlight into electricity; therefore, a solar panel in the contiguous United States, on average, delivers 19 to 56 W/m² or 0.45 - 1.35 kWh/m²/day.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Solar energy conversion

If solar energy is to become a practical alternative to fossil fuels, we must have efficient ways to convert photons into electricity, fuel, and heat. The need for better conversion technologies is a driving force behind many recent developments in biology, materials, and especially nanoscience.

The Sun provides Earth with a staggering amount of energy—enough to power the great oceanic and atmospheric currents, the cycle of evaporation and condensation that brings fresh water inland and drives river flow, and the typhoons, hurricanes, and tornadoes that so easily destroy the natural and built landscape. The San Francisco earthquake of 1906, with magnitude 7.8, released an estimated 1017 joules of energy, the amount the Sun delivers to Earth in one second. Earth's ultimate recoverable resource of oil, estimated at 3 trillion barrels, contains 1.7 × 1022 joules of energy, which the Sun supplies to Earth in 1.5 days. The amount of energy humans use annually, about 4.6 × 1020 joules, is delivered to Earth by the Sun in one hour. The enormous power that the Sun continuously delivers to Earth, 1.2 × 105 terawatts, dwarfs every other energy source, renewable or nonrenewable. It dramatically exceeds the rate at which human civilization produces and uses energy, currently about 13 TW.

Solar photons convert naturally
FIGURE 1
The impressive supply of solar energy is complemented by its versatility, as illustrated in FIGURE 1. Sunlight can be converted into electricity by exciting electrons in a solar cell. It can yield chemical fuel via natural photosynthesis in green plants or artificial photosynthesis in human-engineered systems. Concentrated or unconcentrated sunlight can produce heat for direct use or further conversion to electricity

Despite the abundance and versatility of solar energy, we use very little of it to directly power human activities. Solar electricity accounts for a minuscule 0.015% of world electricity production, and solar heat for 0.3% of global heating of space and water. Biomass produced by natural photosynthesis is by far the largest use of solar energy; its combustion or gasification accounts for about 11% of human energy needs. However, more than two-thirds of that is gathered unsustainably—that is, with no replacement plan—and burned in small, inefficient stoves where combustion is incomplete and the resulting pollutants are uncontrolled.

Between 80% and 85% of our energy comes from fossil fuels, a product of ancient biomass stored beneath Earth's surface for up to 200 million years. Fossil-fuel resources are of finite extent and are distributed unevenly beneath Earth's surface. When fossil fuels are turned into useful energy though combustion, they produce greenhouse gases and other harmful environmental pollutants. In contrast, solar photons are effectively inexhaustible and unrestricted by geopolitical boundaries. Their direct use for energy production does not threaten health or climate. The solar resource's magnitude, wide availability, versatility, and benign effect on the environment and climate make it an appealing energy source.

Raising efficiency

The enormous gap between the potential of solar energy and our use of it is due to cost and conversion capacity. Fossil fuels meet our energy demands much more cheaply than solar alternatives, in part because fossil-fuel deposits are concentrated sources of energy, whereas the Sun distributes photons fairly uniformly over Earth at a more modest energy density. The use of biomass as fuel is limited by the production capacity of the available land and water. The cost and capacity limitations on solar energy use are most effectively addressed by a single research objective: cost effectively raising conversion efficiency.

The best commercial solar cells based on single-crystal silicon are about 18% efficient. Laboratory solar cells based on cheaper dye sensitization of oxide semiconductors are typically less than 10% efficient, and those based on even cheaper organic materials are 2–5% efficient. Green plants convert sunlight into biomass with a typical yearly averaged efficiency of less than 0.3%. The cheapest solar electricity comes not from photovoltaics but from conventional induction generators powered by steam engines driven by solar heat, with efficiencies of 20% on average and 30% for the best systems. Those efficiencies are far below their theoretical limits. Increasing efficiency reduces cost and increases capacity, which raises solar energy to a new level of competitiveness.

Dramatic cost-effective increases in the efficiency of solar energy conversion are enabled by our growing ability to understand and control the fundamental nanoscale phenomena that govern the conversion of photons into other forms of energy. Such phenomena have, until recently, been beyond the reach of our best structural and spectroscopic probes. The rise of nanoscience is yielding new fabrication techniques based on self-assembly, incisive new probes of structure and dynamics at ever-smaller length and time scales, and the new theoretical capability to simulate assemblies of thousands of atoms. Those advances promise the capability to understand and control the underlying structures and dynamics of photon conversion processes.

Electricity

Solar cells capture photons by exciting electrons across the bandgap of a semiconductor, which creates electron–hole pairs that are then charge separated, typically by p–n junctions introduced by doping. The space charge at the p–n junction interface drives electrons in one direction and holes in the other, which creates at the external electrodes a potential difference equal to the bandgap, as sketched in the left panel of FIGURE 1. The concept and configuration are similar to those of a semiconductor diode, except that electrons and holes are introduced into the junction by photon excitation and are removed at the electrodes.

Novel conducting polymers
FIGURE 2
With their 1961 analysis of thermodynamic efficiency, William Shockley and Hans Queisser established a milestone reference point for the performance of solar cells. The analysis is based on four assumptions: a single p–n junction, one electron–hole pair excited per incoming photon, thermal relaxation of the electron–hole pair energy in excess of the bandgap, and illumination with unconcentrated sunlight. Achieving the efficiency limit of 31% that they established for those conditions remains a research goal. The best single-crystal Si cells have achieved 25% efficiency in the laboratory and about 18% in commercial practice. Cheaper solar cells can be made from other materials but they operate at significantly lower efficiency, as shown in the table above. Thin-film cells offer advantages beyond cost, including pliability, as in FIGURE 2, and potential integration with preexisting buildings and infrastructure. Achieving high efficiency from inexpensive materials with so-called third-generation cells, indicated in FIGURE 3, is the grand research challenge for making solar electricity dramatically more affordable.

The three generations of solar cells
FIGURE 3
The Shockley–Queisser limit can be exceeded by violating one or more of its premises. Concentrating sunlight allows for a greater contribution from multi-photon processes; that contribution increases the theoretical efficiency limit to 41% for a single-junction cell with thermal relaxation. A cell with a single p–n junction captures only a fraction of the solar spectrum: photons with energies less than the bandgap are not captured, and photons with energies greater than the bandgap have their excess energy lost to thermal relaxation. Stacked cells with different bandgaps capture a greater fraction of the solar spectrum; the efficiency limit is 43% for two junctions illuminated with unconcentrated sunlight, 49% for three junctions, and 66% for infinitely many junctions.

The most dramatic and surprising potential increase in efficiency comes from carrier multiplication,4 a quantum-dot phenomenon that results in multiple electron–hole pairs for a single incident photon. Carrier multiplication was discussed by Arthur Nozik in 2002 and observed by Richard Schaller and Victor Klimov two years later. Nanocrystals of lead selenide, lead sulfide, or cadmium selenide generate as many as seven electrons per incoming photon, which suggests that efficient solar cells might be made with such nanocrystals. In bulk-semiconductor solar cells, when an incident photon excites a single electron–hole pair, the electron–hole pair energy in excess of the bandgap is likely to be lost to thermal relaxation, whereas in some nanocrystals most of the excess energy can appear as additional electron–hole pairs. If the nanocrystals can be incorporated into a solar cell, the extra pairs could be tapped off as enhanced photocurrent, which would increase the efficiency of the cell.

Hot-electron extraction provides another way to increase the efficiency of nanocrystal-based solar cells: tapping off energetic electrons and holes before they have time to thermally relax.5 Hot electrons boost efficiency by increasing the operating voltage above the bandgap, whereas carrier multiplication increases the operating current. Femtosecond laser and x-ray techniques can provide the necessary understanding of the ultrafast decay processes in bulk semiconductors and their modification in nanoscale geometries that will enable the use of hot-electron phenomena in next-generation solar cells.

Although designs have been proposed for quantum-dot solar cells that benefit from hot electrons or carrier multiplication, significant obstacles impede their implementation. We cannot attach wires to nanocrystals the way we do to bulk semiconductors; collecting the electrons from billions of tiny dots and putting them all into one current lead is a problem in nanoscale engineering that no one has solved yet. A second challenge is separating the electrons from the holes, the job normally done by the space charge at the p–n junction in bulk solar cells. Those obstacles must be overcome before practical quantum-dot cells can be constructed

Dye-sensitized solar cells, introduced by Michael Grätzel and coworkers in 1991, create a new paradigm for photon capture and charge transport in solar conversion. Expensive Si, which does both of those jobs in conventional cells, is replaced by a hybrid of chemical dye and the inexpensive wide-bandgap semiconductor titanium dioxide. The dye, analogous to the light-harvesting chlorophyll in green plants, captures a photon, which elevates one of its electrons to an excited state. The electron is then quickly transferred to the conduction band of a neighboring TiO2 nanoparticle, and it drifts through an array of similar nanoparticles to the external electrode. The hole left in the dye molecule recombines with an electron carried to it through an electrolyte from the counter electrode by an anion such as I. In addition to using cheaper materials, the scheme separates the absorption spectrum of the cell from the bandgap of the semiconductor, so the cell sensitivity is more easily tuned to match the solar spectrum. The cell efficiency depends on several kinds of nanoscale charge dynamics, such as the way the electrons move across the dye–TiO2 and dye–anion interfaces, and the way charges move through the dye, the TiO2 nanoparticle array, and the electrolyte. The development of new dyes and shuttle ions and the characterization and control of the dynamics through time-resolved spectroscopy are vibrant and promising research areas. An equally important research challenge is the nanoscale fabrication of dye-sensitized cells to minimize the transport distances in the dye and semiconductor and maximize the electron-transfer rate at the interfaces.

Fuel

Over the past 3 billion years, Nature has devised a remarkably diverse set of pathways for converting solar photons into chemical fuel. An estimated 100 TW of solar energy go into photosynthesis, the production of sugars and starches from water and carbon dioxide via endothermic reactions facilitated by catalysts. Although plants have covered Earth in green in their quest to capture solar photons, their overall conversion efficiency is too low to readily satisfy the human demand for energy. The early stages of photosynthesis are efficient: Two molecules of water are split to provide four protons and electrons for subsequent reactions, and an oxygen molecule is released into the atmosphere. The inefficiency lies in the later stages, in which carbon dioxide is reduced to form the carbohydrates that plants use to grow roots, leaves, and stalks. The research challenge is to make the overall conversion process between 10 and 100 times more efficient by improving or replacing the inefficient stages of photosynthesis.

There are three routes to improving the efficiency of photosynthesis-based solar fuel production: breeding or genetically engineering plants to grow faster and produce more biomass, connecting natural photosynthetic pathways in novel configurations to avoid the inefficient steps, and using artificial bio-inspired nanoscale assemblies to produce fuel from water and CO2. The first route is the occupation of a thriving industry that has produced remarkable increases in plant yields, and we will not discuss it further. The second and third routes, which involve more direct manipulation of photosynthetic pathways, are still in their early stages of research.

Nature provides many examples of metabolic systems that convert sunlight and chemicals into high-energy fuels. Green plants use an elaborate complex of chlorophyll molecules coupled to a reaction center to split water into protons, electrons, and oxygen. Bacteria use the hydrogenase enzyme to create hydrogen molecules from protons and electrons. More than 60 species of methane-producing archaea, remnants from early Earth when the atmosphere was reducing instead of oxidizing, use H2 to reduce CO2 to CH4. Anaerobic organisms such as yeasts and bacteria use enzymes to ferment sugars into alcohols.

In nature, the metabolic pathways are connected in complicated networks that have evolved for organisms' survival and reproduction, not for fuel production. The efficient steps that are relevant for fuel production might conceivably be isolated and connected directly to one another to produce fuels such as H2, CH4, or alcohols. Hybridizing nature in that way takes advantage of the elaborate molecular processes that biology has evolved and that are still beyond human reach, while eliminating the inefficient steps not needed for fuel production. For example, the protons and electrons produced in the early stages of photosynthesis could link to hydrogenase to produce H2, and a further connection to methanogenic archaea could produce CH4. The challenges are creating a functional interface between existing metabolic modules, achieving a competitive efficiency for the modified network, and inducing the organism hosting the hybrid system to reproduce. The ambitious vision of hybrids that produce energy efficiently sets a basic research agenda to simultaneously advance the frontiers of biology, materials science, and energy conversion.

An artificial antenna-reaction-center complex
FIGURE 4
Artificial photosynthesis takes the ultimate step of using inanimate components to convert sunlight into chemical fuel. Although the components do not come from nature, the energy conversion routes are bio-inspired. Remarkable progress has been made in the field. Light harvesting and charge separation are accomplished by synthetic antennas linked to a porphyrin-based charge donor and a fullerene acceptor, as shown in FIGUR 4. The assembly is embedded in an artificial membrane, in the presence of quinones that act as proton shuttles, to produce a light-triggered proton gradient across the membrane. The proton gradient can do useful work, such as powering the molecular synthesis of adenosine triphosphate by mechanical rotation of natural ATP synthase inserted into the membrane. Under the right conditions, the required elements self-assemble to produce a membrane-based chemical factory that transforms light into the chemical fuel ATP, molecule by molecule at ambient temperature, in the spirit of natural photosynthesis.

Such remarkable achievements illustrate the promise of producing fuel directly from sunlight without the use of biological components. Many fundamental challenges must be overcome, however. The output of the above energy conversion chain is ATP, not a fuel that links naturally to human-engineered energy chains. The last step relies on the natural catalyst ATP synthase, a highly evolved protein whose function we cannot yet duplicate artificially. Laboratory approximations of biological catalysts have catalytic activities that are often orders of magnitude lower than those of their biological counterparts, which indicates the importance of subtle features that we are not yet able to resolve or to reproduce.

Solar fuels can be created in an alternate, fully nonbiological way based on semiconductor solar cells rather than on photosynthesis. In photoelectrochemical conversion, the charge-separated electrons and holes are used locally to split water or reduce CO2 at the interface with an electrolytic solution, rather than being sent through an external circuit to do electrical work.9 Hydrogen was produced at the electrode–water interface with greater than 10% efficiency by Adam Heller in 1984 and by Oscar Khaselev and John Turner in 1998, but the fundamental phenomena involved remain mysterious, and the present devices are not practical. A promising way to improve them is by tailoring the nanoscale architecture of the electrode–electrolyte interface to promote the reaction of interest. A better understanding of how individual electrons negotiate the electrode–electrolyte interface is needed before H2 can be produced with greater efficiency or more complex reactions can be designed for reducing CO2 to useful fuels.

Heat

The first step in traditional energy conversion is the combustion of fuel, usually fossil fuel, to produce heat. Heat produced by combustion may be used for heating space and water, cooking, or industrial processes, or it may be further converted into motion or electricity. The premise of solar thermal conversion is that heat from the Sun replaces heat from combustion; fossil-fuel use and its threat to the environment and climate are thus reduced.

Unconcentrated sunlight can bring the temperature of a fluid to about 200 °C, enough to heat space and water in residential and commercial applications. Many regions use solar water heating, though in only a few countries, such as Cyprus and Israel, does it meet a significant fraction of the demand. Concentration of sunlight in parabolic troughs produces temperatures of 400 °C, and parabolic dishes can produce temperatures of 650 °C and higher. Power towers, in which a farm of mirrors on the ground reflects to a common receiver at the top of a tower, can yield temperatures of 1500 °C or more. The high temperatures of solar power towers are attractive for thermochemical water splitting and solar-driven reforming of fossil fuels to produce H2.

The temperatures produced by concentrated sunlight are high enough to power heat engines, whose Carnot efficiencies depend only on the ratio of the inlet and outlet temperatures. Steam engines driven by solar heat and connected to conventional generators currently supply the cheapest solar electricity. Nine solar thermal electricity plants that use tracking parabolic-trough concentrators were installed in California's Mojave Desert between 1984 and 1991. Those plants still operate, supplying 354 MW of peak power to the grid. Their average annual efficiency is approximately 20%, and the most recently installed can achieve 30%.

Although those efficiencies are the highest for any widely implemented form of solar conversion, they are modest compared to the nearly 60% efficiency of the best gas-fired electricity generators. Achieving greater efficiency for solar conversion requires large-scale plants with operating temperatures of 1500 °C or more, as might be produced by power towers. Another alternative, still in the exploration stage, is a hybrid of two conversion schemes: A concentrated solar beam is split into its visible portion for efficient photovoltaic conversion and its high-energy portion for conversion to heat that is converted to electricity through a heat engine.

A nanodot inclusion
FIGURE 5
Thermoelectric materials, which require no moving parts to convert thermal gradients directly into electricity, are an attractive possibility for reliable and inexpensive electricity production. Charge carriers in a thermal gradient diffuse from hot to cold, driven by the temperature difference but creating an electric current by virtue of the charge on each carrier. The strength of the effect is measured by the thermopower, the ratio of the voltage produced to the applied temperature difference. Although the thermoelectric effect has been known for nearly 200 years, materials that can potentially convert heat to electricity efficiently enough for widespread use have emerged only since the 1990s. Efficient conversion depends on minimizing the thermal conductivity of a material, so as not to short-circuit the thermal gradient, while maximizing the material's electrical conductivity and thermopower. Achieving such a combination of opposites requires the separate tuning of several material properties: the bandgap, the electronic density of states, and the electron and phonon lifetimes. The most promising materials are nanostructured composites. Quantum-dot or nanowire substructures introduce spikes in the density of states to tune the thermopower (which depends on the derivative of the density of states), and interfaces between the composite materials block thermal transport but allow electrical transport, as discussed by Lyndon Hicks and Mildred Dresselhaus in 1993. Proof of concept for interface control of thermal and electrical conductivity was achieved by 2001 with thin-film superlattices of Bi2Te3/Sb2Te3 and PbTe/PbSe, which performed twice as well as bulk-alloy thermoelectrics of the same materials. The next challenges are to achieve the same performance in nanostructured bulk materials that can handle large amounts of power and to use nanodot or nanowire inclusions to control the thermopower. FIGURE 5 shows encouraging progress: structurally distinct nanodots in a bulk matrix of the thermoelectric material Ag0.86Pb18SbTe20. Controlling the size, density, and distribution of such nanodot inclusions during bulk synthesis could significantly enhance thermoelectric performance.

Storage and distribution

Solar energy presents a scientific challenge beyond the efficient conversion of solar photons to electricity, fuel, and heat. Once conversion on a large scale is achieved, we must find ways to store the large quantities of electricity and heat that we will produce. Access to solar energy is interrupted by natural cycles of day–night, cloudy–sunny, and winter–summer variation that are often out of phase with energy demand. Solar fuel production automatically stores energy in chemical bonds. Electricity and heat, however, are much more difficult to store. Cost effectively storing even a fraction of our peak demand for electricity or heat for 24 hours is a task well beyond present technology.

Storage is such an imposing technical challenge that innovative schemes have been proposed to minimize its need. Baseload solar electricity might be generated on constellations of satellites in geosynchronous orbit and beamed to Earth via microwaves focused onto ground-based receiving antennas. A global superconducting grid might direct electricity generated in sunny locations to cloudy or dark locations where demand exceeds supply. But those schemes, too, are far from being implemented. Without cost-effective storage and distribution, solar electricity can only be a peak-shaving technology for producing power in bright daylight, acting as a fill for some other energy source that can provide reliable power to users on demand.

Outlook

The Sun has the enormous untapped potential to supply our growing energy needs. The barrier to greater use of the solar resource is its high cost relative to the cost of fossil fuels, although the disparity will decrease with the rising prices of fossil fuels and the rising costs of mitigating their impact on the environment and climate. The cost of solar energy is directly related to the low conversion efficiency, the modest energy density of solar radiation, and the costly materials currently required. The development of materials and methods to improve solar energy conversion is primarily a scientific challenge: Breakthroughs in fundamental understanding ought to enable marked progress. There is plenty of room for improvement, since photovoltaic conversion efficiencies for inexpensive organic and dye-sensitized solar cells are currently about 10% or less, the conversion efficiency of photosynthesis is less than 1%, and the best solar thermal efficiency is 30%. The theoretical limits suggest that we can do much better.

Solar conversion is a young science. Its major growth began in the 1970s, spurred by the oil crisis that highlighted the pervasive importance of energy to our personal, social, economic, and political lives. In contrast, fossil-fuel science has developed over more than 250 years, stimulated by the Industrial Revolution and the promise of abundant fossil fuels. The science of thermodynamics, for example, is intimately intertwined with the development of the steam engine. The Carnot cycle, the mechanical equivalent of heat, and entropy all played starring roles in the development of thermodynamics and the technology of heat engines. Solar-energy science faces an equally rich future, with nanoscience enabling the discovery of the guiding principles of photonic energy conversion and their use in the development of cost-competitive new technologies.

The plot behind killing electric cars

In order to protect out planet... sooner or latter...electric cars will be the new generation of cars.
In the past few years, a theory has developed hinging on the notion that oil producers, in cahoots with auto manufacturers, conspired with each other in the mid-'90s to throttle the electric car in its crib. As a result, we've all been consigned to environmental doom.

The doom part actually seems to be on track, but the rest of the theory doesn't hold up that well upon closer inspection. Don't get me wrong: I think electric transportation (along with clean diesel) will become more prevalent over the next 20 years. And automakers have worked to keep emissions standards low. But here are some reasons why we're not witnessing a modern-day version of the Knights Templar:

1. U.S. automakers. This is General Motors and Ford Motor we're talking about. U.S. automakers are the last bastion of industrial feudalism on the planet. The most innovative things they've come up with in three decades are the cupholder and the Lee Iacocca goggle glasses. These people are going to engineer a global conspiracy that eludes regulators around the world, financiers and competitors? GM execs are more concerned about who gets named to the Rolling Hills Country Club membership committee.
There is no Moore's Law for batteries that allows them to get cheaper, faster and better at a steady rate over time.

2. Japanese automakers. Toyota Motor and Honda Motor came out with electric cars in the '90s. Japan's economy at the time remained stuck in the doldrums and the government, fearful of competition from other Asian tigers, was scrambling to find a hot export. Instead of working with the government--something they've done in the past--Toyota and Honda were said to conspire with their natural enemies (GM and Ford) to help oil companies, which because Japan imports all of its oil, aren't well liked in that country. The conspiracy had the automakers, led by GM, touting reasons why there was no market for electric vehicles, including the vehicles' limited mileage range per charge. GM pulled its electric car, the EV1, off the market.

3. Hybrids. Toyota overtook GM as the largest car maker on the strength of the Prius, the part-electrical car that came out in 1997, the same year GM came out with the EV1. (GM leased 650 EV1s while Toyota sold 323 Priuses.)

To believe the conspiracy, you'd have to think of the Prius as a cover-up to keep the real reason under wraps. It wasn't because the Prius worked better. Follow the money, as crazy people like to say.

4. Sales weren't great and neither were the cars. There was a lot of customer curiosity, but few walked out of the showroom with a sales contract, according to Mary Nickerson, national marketing manager for Toyota.

"The Rav4 EV had a 100-mile range. That range was not sufficient for most people in the marketplace," she said at a conference earlier this year. "If it is the only vehicle in your garage, it is not enough for a typical American household."

Elon Musk, chairman of electric-vehicle company Tesla Motors, put it to me another way in July 2006: "Until today, all electric cars have sucked."

5. The fans were visible, but small in number. "The people who had the car (the General Motors EV1) loved it, but battery life was a bigger issue for the larger market," said Alan Gotcher, CEO of Altair Nanotechnologies, which makes lithium-ion batteries for electric cars. "I don't believe in the conspiracy theory. The battery still only had a five-year life. It didn't last the life of the car, so how do you handle that issue?"

Again, Gotcher, like Nickerson and Musk, works at a company that wants to make money from electric transportation.

6. Batteries are tough to make. Why did computer notebooks begin to explode more than normal last year? Battery makers pushed too hard to improve their products and the volumes of production. There is no Moore's Law for batteries that allows them to get cheaper, faster and better at a steady rate over time. The gains are generally slow and incremental.

"People have tried all of the elements of the periodic table for a long time," said Alain Harrus, a partner at Crosslink Capital, which invests in semiconductors and batteries. "The cycles, charge times, etc., are well known."

Right now, car makers are examining both lithium cobalt and lithium phosphate batteries. Cobalt ones store more energy, but are more likely to have a runaway thermal reaction. The phosphate batteries, however, weigh 30 percent more, he added. Trade-offs. Ugh.
Now on News.com
Chizen steps aside as Adobe's chief Oracle's rendezvous in San Francisco Can WiMax make it in the U.S.? Extra: Nine things to ask a tech start-up

7. Batteries are expensive too. Making an electric Honda Accord would probably add about $30,000, estimated Ian Wright, CEO of electric sports-car company Wrightspeed, last year. Gasoline-fueled Accords on sale today cost less than that. That's a tough marketing pitch.

Battery expenses are one of the reasons plug-in hybrids haven't swept the world. The upgrade costs about $15,000. Even if gas cost $4 a gallon, you'd need to drive 150,000 miles--within the city--to recover the cost.

Companies are currently trying to figure out ways around this. Tesla and Wrightspeed are aiming at the high-end market, where performance rules over price. India's Reva makes cheap cars for emerging market customers whose governments have begun to pass strict emissions requirements. Phoenix Motorcars and others target fleet buyers whose vehicles don't need to go more than 100 miles before a recharge. How they tinker these pitches will be interesting to watch.

8. A car company is about the worst thing you can do to yourself. Ben Rosen helped found Compaq Computer and had a hand in a number of other tech enterprises, including Ask Jeeves. He was also behind Rosen Motors, a short-lived car company idea. Making cars involves constructing huge plants, assembling massive supply chains and undergoing millions of dollars' worth of crash testing. Then you have to visit a whole bunch of dealers and drink some really bad coffee in those glass showroom cubicles before they will agree to pick up your cars. Good luck. I'd rather sell air fresheners.

So to sum up, consumers are cheap and don't want to be inconvenienced by a car that will die on the freeway before they get to Ikeda's produce and burger stand when they're driving from the Bay Area to Lake Tahoe. And the people who win worldwide fortune and fame by bringing you an ideal mode of transportation have had more trouble than they thought.

I might be wrong...

Next Generation Rechargeable Hybrid Cars Gaining Wider Support

April 12, 2005 -- An unusual alliance of the political left and the right is throwing its support behind a newly emerging, evolutionary adaptation of gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles. Unlike current hybrid models, these new plug-in hybrids will give owners the choice of running them off electric power, gasoline or renewable biofuels.

Background A relative recent phenomenon, hybrids from Honda, Toyota and Ford are expanding their market share in North America at an accelerating rate. In 2004, Toyota Prius sales were up 118%. Similarly, Honda saw its hybrid sales grow from just under 10,000 vehicles in 1999 to nearly 50,000 in 2003.

Hybrids use a combination of internal combustion engine and electric drive motors, powered by high energy battery packs deftly hidden from view, to deliver improved fuel efficiency, enhanced performance and reduced greenhouse gas and tailpipe emissions. And while hybrid-drive architecture vary among carmakers, they do share one thing in common: no current models require owners to plug them in to recharge their batteries. The cars are self-recharging from the engine and brakes; and Toyota and Honda have labored hard to make sure potential buyers do not confuse hybrids with battery electric cars.New Transportation Paradigm Emerging But just as consumers are beginning to recognize the value of gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles in terms of their improved fuel efficiency -- and increasingly better performance compared to non-hybrid models; as in the case of the new Honda Accord Hybrid and Lexus RX400h -- proponents of home-rechargeable, plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) are starting to make political inroads within Washington policy circles.

Here are some recent developments:

* Austin, Texas city council endorses flexible fuel, gasoline-optional, PHEVs

* Austin Energy, the city's public utility, plans to offer substantial consumer rebates on PHEVs

* Set America Free – a "green-neocon" coalition -- endorses development of PHEVs

* National Energy Policy Commission study finds PHEVs rank top among automobile development pathways

* Energy Future Coalition, made up of 31 former national security experts and Republican and Democratic Presidential advisers, recommends development of plug-in hybrids.

* New York Times and Business Week have featured major articles on plug-in hybrids.

* A recent technical workshop on plug-in hybrids in Monaco attracts three times the anticipated audience.

When hybrids can be recharged from the local utility grid -- or even a homeowner's solar panels -- some, or most, of the energy propelling the car comes from domestically-produced electric power, replacing imported oil. This has important national security, global warming and local air quality implications. While no hybrid car maker currently offers consumers PHEV, it would require relatively minor changes to facilitate this capability, especially in the current model Toyota and Ford hybrids, which already have some limited electric-only driving range.

While the barriers are not trivial -- primarily because of the initial cost of a larger battery pack -- two California-based organizations are solving the engineering problems; and one has demonstrated a home-rechargeable, aggressively-electric Prius hybrid that is capable of delivering 120-180 mpg fuel efficiency numbers for the first sixty miles of range, triple the range of the current Prius.

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in Palo Alto, CA. and Austin Energy project that consumers who home recharge their plug-in hybrids will pay electric costs equivalent of less than 60 cents a gallon of gasoline. And in the city of Austin's case, if home recharging is done at night on Austin's Green Rate, the vehicles will end up being recharged primarily by wind energy from farms in west Texas, making these cars almost entirely wind-powered.

This is why groups as politically disparate as the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security and the National Resources Defense Council Foundation have joined forces, with others, to endorse the development of plug-in hybrid vehicles. They believe it is not just good for the environment and the consumer's pocket book, it's critical to national security.

Adds By Google