Why do I think perpetual motion machines will be appearing frequently in the news? Because, with today’s focus on clean and efficient energy, we are going to find numerous good-willed, if scientifically challenged, inventors producing machines that seek to defy that little, old field we like to call “physics.”

Background Reading

Perpetual Motion (Wikipedia)

History of perpetual motion machines (Wikipedia)

The Museum of Unworkable Devices

Powertread: Stealing Power from Cars

The first PMM post is highlighting Powertread, a device for capturing energy from cars in traffic and converting it into electricity.

It’s literally a series of tubes filled with water that, when run over, force their contents through a turbine to generate electricity. One car driving over one of the things generates 580 watts of electricity at 36 amps. That’s not an awful lot power, but imagine a dozen of the things lined up at a busy off-ramp, run over by thousands of impatient drivers every day, and you can see the potential. The Singaporean government does too, providing grants to fund the project and two shopping malls there have already signed up to purchase the results.

via Powertread turns gridlock into electricity with a series of tubes from Engadget.com

Here’s what’s wrong this idea:

Any energy that is captured by this device must be taken directly from the vehicle crossing its tubes. If the device captured, say, 100 Joules from a passing car, the car itself will end up with about 300 Joules less energy, once the efficiency of electricity generation is considered. (These numerical values are assumptions for the sake of this post.)

In essence, what’s been created is a very roundabout method of electricity generation. Gasoline is converted from chemical energy to kinetic energy in a moving vehicle. This energy is then transferred from the vehicle to water to a turbine blade to a generator. The overall efficiency of this system can’t be greater than 10%, and it will certainly be expensive, to boot.

Now, the argument of the inventors is that cars in traffic will be braking anyway, and this device will slow down vehicles rather than allowing the vehicle’s braking energy to be wasted as heat. From an energy standpoint, that is a more defensible. However, the device is still worthless from a practical standpoint.

First, we are growing our fleet of hybrid vehicles which have built-in capabilities to recapture braking energy and store it in batteries. If cars already have the capability to capture braking energy everywhere they drive, why try to capture energy outside the car only where you’ve placed Powertreads? Second, the energy captured by these devices will be very intermittent-not a continuous flow of steady wattage-and that creates practical challenges for inverters and storage devices. Third, driving over these tubes will feel like hitting a speed bump, and drivers will certainly hate the experience.

I’m glad these inventors are working to help save energy, but I’m sorry to say that they should tread away from the Powertread idea today and start working on something a bit more practical for tomorrow.

The utility industry has some serious work ahead to prepare for the emergence of plug-in electric vehicles from the development pipeline. Customers will be expecting high-voltage power in places where it’s not available today, like parking lots at the office. Customers will also need a way to pay for this electricity, with a new metering and billing system. In the long-run, a smart-grid that can pull power from vehicles, as well as charge them, could help smooth out the variation in solar and wind power.

It’s not surprising that one of the utilities working at the edge of electric car infrastructure is in California — the state leads in renewable energy and energy efficiency deployment as well. Southern California Edison isn’t blanketing its territory with upgrades, an unaffordable venture; rather, it’s using innovative measures to estimate where electric vehicles will be parked in the future and beginning the upgrades far in advance.

It’s refreshing to see forward thinking like this in the utility industry. Between the Smart Grid deployments funded by the recovery act and these preparations for electric vehicles, we’ll have much more flexibility to take advantage of renewable energy and next-gen vehicles in coming decades.

Electric Vehicle-Ready Smart Grid

Find more details at FastCompany:

One utility that thinks it will: Southern California Edison. The utility covers a massive swath of land that includes 5 million meters, 14 million residents. By 2020, the utility’s customers could have up to 1 million EVs on the road. But SoCal Edison is already gearing up for the early adopters, explained Pedro Pizarro, the executive vice president of Power Operations for Southern California Edison. “If you have a block with three or four Priuses, that’s probably an early adopter neighborhood,” he said. SoCal Edison is in the midst of surveying its customers to find out which ones plan on buying EVs early. The zip codes with the highest amount of early adopters will likely receive upgraded wiring and circuitry that can handle all the excess pressure on the grid from EVs.

Now a British architectural design firm is giving the more conventional combustion power plant a much-needed makeover. Of course, this plant doesn’t burn coal, but substitutes palm kernel shells instead.

Why not make these facilities good-looking and integrated into the environment? Sure, they lose their attraction as a movie setting for climactic clashes between humans and alien invaders, but they’re likely to endear much more good will with the surrounding community who views the plant out their kitchen windows.

Fancy-schmancy biomass plant

Excerpt:

Heatherwick Studio has just released its design for a biomass station on the banks of the River Tees in British town Stockton-on-Tees, for British company BEI.

The facility is expected to pump out 49 MWe–enough to power 50,000 homes. Those homes are expected to see their per capita carbon footprint cut by as much as 80%, since the electricity will be generated simply by biomass generators that will burn palm kernel shells, rather than coal.

Thomas Heatherwick, Heatherwick Studio’s founder, has a genius for offbeat architecture, made with experimental techniques–for example, he designed a colony of houses with tinfoil and a bridge that curls up like a snail.

This time, the building has been conceived as less of a power station, and more of a local attraction and amenity. The building’s skin will literally be green, made up of exterior panels planted with local grasses. Inside, in addition to offices and the biomass factory, there will be a visitor’s center.

via Heatherwick Turns Biomass Into a Thing of Beauty | Design & Innovation | Fast Company.

Well, novel if you don’t count the fact that evolution invented this technique first.

A company called Carbozyme is finishing lab tests to mimic the method used by our bodies for transporting CO2 by applying it to the challenge of capturing and sequestering CO2 from coal power plants.

As cells pump CO2 produced during respiration into the blood, the enzyme carbonic anhydrase converts the gas into bicarbonate for easier transport to the lungs. There the same enzyme works in reverse, turning the molecules back into the CO2 gas you exhale. This action could play the critical role of selectively capturing CO2 from mixed gas emissions for later sequestration.

The company Carbozyme is finishing up lab tests of a system that consists of millions of microscale, porous tubes coated with a synthetic version of the enzyme. As a mixture of smokestack gases passes through the tubes, the enzyme pulls CO₂ from the mix and turns it into bicarbonate and back, isolating CO₂ so it could be pumped underground and stored in layers of basalt rock. Based on lab tests and models, the system should use about a third less energy than other methods while avoiding the hazardous chemicals typically used to grab CO₂.

via Human Blood May Hold the Secret to Clean Coal | Popular Science.

So cool. Don’t give up on this challenge just yet.

For example, take a simple-sounding question like, “How much energy is required to produce a ton of iron?”

This is a relatively straightforward analysis if the scope of energy usage includes only the iron plant. You count the fuel and electricity going in; you count the iron coming out. Divide the former by the latter and badda-bing. Done.

But what about the energy consumed to mine the iron ore out of the ground? And to transport the ore to the iron plant? And to transport the iron from the plant to its destination? And to mine the coal out of the ground? And to convert the coal to coke? And to manufacture the bulldozers and trucks that mine the coal and ore? And to manufacture the steel that goes into the equipment? Now we’re back to iron, again. We’re not close to done and we’ve already tied ourselves in a knot.

In practical terms, it’s impossible to include all the factors in an energy analysis like this. At some point, the analyst has to draw an arbitrary line and say, “Good enough.” Hopefully, this line is drawn in a place where the ignored factors constitute an insignificant percentage of the total result.

A recent report from the National Research Council tries to expand the scope of the analysis of energy costs. It takes into consideration the health impacts of energy use, which are rarely specified in quantitative terms.

By design, this report does not include the costs of energy use in terms of climate change, but that is a beast of a study on its own. Analyzing climate change costs requires forecasting the future, while this report is based on historical data.

The report also ignores the national security costs of energy use. I understand why this is hard to measure, but it should definitely not be ignored. What is the cost of wars over control of the terrorist-riddled oil-producing nations that we are dependent upon for importing petroleum, both in dollar terms and in lives lost?

Food price increases are not considered, either. What is the cost, particularly to the poorest in the world, of using food crops to produce ethanol? An economist could, if necessary, produce a figure tying these figures together. “Malnutrition deaths per gallon”, perhaps.

Nonetheless, this is a valuable report that will hopefully illuminate for many the hidden costs of our energy use. Understanding these costs allows us to make better-informed decisions, considering all the benefits and pitfalls before creating unforeseen negative side effects.

Don’t forget the importance of scope. It’s always a bigger picture than you can imagine.

Excerpt:

“Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use,” a new report from the National Research Council, a branch of the National Academies, tries to put a dollar figure on what economists call externalities.

The study, however, comes with a major caveat: it did not look at the impact of energy on climate change and ecosystems, or at rising food prices and the risks to national security.

Still, the report, which was requested by Congress in 2005, estimated that the hidden cost of energy on human health was $120 billion in 2005, the last year for which full data was available.

Unsurprisingly, the biggest contributors to these extra costs were coal-fired power plants, which generate half of the nation’s power but which also accounted for $62 billion in hidden damages associated with the emissions of pollutants like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, and particulate matter like soot or fine dust.

The report also found that in 2005 the vehicle sector produced $56 billion in health and other non-climate-change damages, with $36 billion from light-duty vehicles and $20 billion from heavy-duty vehicles.

via Report Shows Hidden Costs of Energy – Green Inc. Blog – NYTimes.com.

In essence, cheaper CCS will produce a greater volume of carbon credits, thereby dropping the price of the credits supply-and-demand-style.

Hopefully this reevaluation of the costs of capping carbon emissions will give a helping hand to cap and trade regulations that have yet to reach the Senate floor.

Excerpt:

STANFORD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS — There’s good news for supporters of the Waxman-Markey climate bill from Professor Stefan Reichelstein. Although passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in June 2009, the bill is expected to spur a contentious debate in the Senate starting this fall. Opponents argue that the bill’s proposed “cap-and-trade” system will take a high financial toll on energy consumers and companies alike, and devastate the economy at a time the country can least afford it.

Reichelstein and doctoral student Ozge Islegen believe they have evidence to the contrary. Reichelstein and Islegen have examined the financial impact of regulating coal-fired power plants that produce carbon dioxide emissions under a cap-and-trade system and found the financial burden to be much less than previously projected.

via Reducing CO2 Emissions Could Be Significantly Less Costly Than Predicted.

How about designing a power system that needs to survive temperatures ten times hotter than the center of the sun?

This is the intimidating challenge facing the scientists and engineers who are blazing a trail in nuclear fusion research. The technical scope and scale of this challenge is as large as the clean energy reward should they ever succeed in their mission.

If you are attracted to high risk and high reward technology, this might be the place to be.

Excerpt:

At a fusion power plant, the fuel needs to be burned on human, not cosmological, timescales. The heavier isotopes deuterium and tritium are a little easier to burn than ordinary hydrogen, but even so, to get a good blaze going inside ITER the temperature will have to be racked up to a hellish 150 million kelvin. That brings a mountain of engineering problems. Not least is how to contain a plasma of electrons and atomic nuclei that is 10 times as hot as the sun’s core.

Even the most hardy of construction materials cannot withstand temperatures of more than a few thousand kelvin. So the solution is to weave a cage for the plasma from magnetic fields.

via Building a second sun: Take $10 billion, add coconuts – tech – 12 October 2009 – New Scientist.

Why is the Chamber so opposed to our nation taking action to prevent further climate change? According to at least 3 major reports, a green economy will create a net number of new jobs, anywhere from 3 to 30 million, depending on your source.

All these new green businesses are just the kind of company that should find friends in a chamber of commerce. But something tells me the clean tech industry and the Chamber don’t see eye to eye today.

Excerpt:

A new report released today says that if we shift our economy — to a greener, low-carbon economy — we will have more jobs, not fewer.

Earlier this week, Tony Blair (former prime minister of the UK) and the Climate Group reported that if we worked to avoid climate change we’d create 10 million new jobs by 2020 — worldwide. Another recent study by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council says that such a shift could increase employment in the EU by 2.7 million jobs by 2030.

One more report, released today by the Global Climate Network (an alliance of nine influential think tanks) comes to similar conclusions.

via Green Economy = More Jobs : CleanTechnica.

Excerpt:

The clear message Chu took home from China was that its leaders are dead serious about climate change and clean energy. They won’t accept an emissions cap before we do — understandably, since our per capita emissions are still four times higher — but they’re preparing for a carbon-constrained economy. They already have cars that are more fuel-efficient than ours, and they’re developing more-advanced transmission lines. They’re still building a new coal-fired plant almost every week, but two years ago, they were building two of them every week. They’re making a huge push into wind and solar and should be the world’s largest producer of renewables by 2010. “Every Chinese leader I met was absolutely determined to do something about their carbon emissions,” Chu said. “Some U.S. policymakers still don’t think this is a problem.” (Read “One Voice in a Billion: Changing the Climate in China.”)

In fact, GOP leaders have said that global warming is a hoax, that fears about carbon are “almost comical,” that the earth is actually cooling. When I asked Chu about the earth-is-cooling argument, he rolled his eyes and whipped out a chart showing that the 10 hottest years on record have all been in the past 12 years — and that 1998 was the hottest. He mocked the skeptics who focus on that post-1998 blip while ignoring a century-long trend of rising temperatures: “See? It’s gone down! The earth must be cooling!” But then he got serious, almost plaintive: “You know, it’s totally irresponsible. You’re not supposed to make up the facts.”

Welcome to Washington, where a Nobel Prize winner’s opinion is just another opinion, where facts are malleable and sometimes irrelevant. It’s tough to be Mr. Outside in a town where policy happens on the inside. Congress is blocking Chu’s plan to create eight “Bell lablets” to investigate his game changers, along with his efforts to scuttle hydrogen-car research he considers futile. He’s trying to make DOE’s bureaucracy more nimble, but it still pushed less than 1% of its stimulus funds out the door in five months. And while Chu ends speeches with Martin Luther King Jr.’s quote about “the fierce urgency of now” — one of Obama’s favorites — the clean-energy bill is on hold until health care is done. There’s still a broad perception in Washington that dealing with climate change will require sacrifices that Americans won’t tolerate.

The Chinese don’t seem to worry about that. At one point, Chu acknowledged that democracy makes change a lot tougher, although he hastened to add that he’s a big fan of democracy. “We just have to do a better job communicating the facts so the electorate can educate themselves,” he said. Soon he sounded like he was talking to himself again: “Let’s be positive. The facts really do matter to the American people.”

via Steven Chu, A Political Scientist — Printout — TIME.

Obama at Newton, Iowa factory

Obama used the town of Newton, Iowa and the Trinity Structural Towers factory there as an example of the potential for clean energy businesses to replace jobs lost in mature manufacturing industries. The Maytag appliance factory in Newton — now inhabited by Trinity with 90 employees — once employed 4,000 people before closing entirely as manufacturing shifted overseas.

This is only one example, but it does illustrate the gap between America’s past manufacturing heyday and the size of today’s clean energy industry, even considering the potential growth of the latter. We certainly need these new jobs in order to replace those recently lost, particularly in the auto industry. But how do we encourage the manufacturing of these new clean energy innovations to occur in the US rather than overseas? Will clean energy companies make their global operations decisions any differently than hundreds of other industries already have, shifting production to low-cost countries like China?

I hope so. This is not only an employment issue but a national security issue. We need control of local clean energy resources to replace our dependence on petroleum from the Middle East.

I am excited to hear that a cap-and-trade program might finally emerge in the US. As I’ve written before, until carbon emissions impose a cost on emitters commensurate with the impact of the emissions on the climate, none of our ambitious goals to cut energy consumption and increase renewable energy usage will be feasible.

Obama’s speech barely addressed the piece of the clean energy economy that will have the greatest impact on the state of Iowa — biofuels. Iowa already produces large amounts of corn-based ethanol, but most agree that ethanol derived from food crops is not a long-term solution. Moving forward, advanced liquid biofuels will be essential to reduce petroleum consumption, as many applications, particularly diesel engines, cannot typically not be replaced with batteries and electric motors. Future biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol, will grow into a huge section of the agricultural economy, and agriculture is certainly Iowa’s backbone.

I look forward to watching these initiatives move forward. Let’s see what Congress does next.