Technology Review Friday, July 31, 2009
A startup snags funding to start early work on a low-budget test reactor.
By Tyler Hamilton
General Fusion, a startup in Vancouver, Canada, says it can build a prototype fusion power plant within the next decade and do it for less than a billion dollars. So far, it has raised $13.5 million from public and private investors to help kick-start its ambitious effort.
Unlike the $14 billion ITER project under way in France, General Fusion's approach doesn't rely on expensive superconducting magnets--called tokamaks--to contain the superheated plasma necessary to achieve and sustain a fusion reaction. Nor does the company require powerful lasers, such as those within the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, to confine a plasma target and compress it to extreme temperatures until fusion occurs.
Instead, General Fusion says it can achieve "net gain"--that is, create a fusion reaction that gives off more energy than is needed to trigger it--using relatively low-tech, mechanical brute force and advanced digital control technologies that scientists could only dream of 30 years ago.
It may seem implausible, but some top U.S. fusion experts say General Fusion's approach, which is a variation on what the industry calls magnetized target fusion, is scientifically sound and could actually work. It's a long shot, they say, but well worth a try.
"I'm rooting for them," says Ken Fowler, professor emeritus of nuclear engineering and plasma physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a leading authority on fusion-reactor designs. He's analyzed the approach and found no technical showstoppers. "Maybe these guys can do it. It's really luck of the draw."
The prototype reactor will be composed of a metal sphere about three meters in diameter containing a liquid mixture of lithium and lead. The liquid is spun to create a vortex inside the sphere that forms a vertical cavity in the middle. At this point, two donut-shaped plasma rings held together by self-generated magnetic fields, called spheromaks, are injected into the cavity from the top and bottom of the sphere and come together to create a target in the center. "Think about it as blowing smoke rings at each other," says Doug Richardson, chief executive of General Fusion.
On the outside of the metal sphere are 220 pneumatically controlled pistons, each programmed to simultaneously ram the surface of the sphere at 100 meters a second. The force of the pistons sends an acoustic wave through the lead-lithium mixture, and that accelerates into a shock wave as it reaches the plasma, which is made of the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium.
If everything works as planned, the plasma will compress instantly and the isotopes will fuse into helium, releasing a burst of energy-packed neutrons that are captured by the lead-lithium liquid. The rapid heat buildup in the liquid will be extracted through a heat exchanger, with half used to create steam that spins a turbine for power generation, and the rest used to recharge the pistons for the next "shot."
The ultimate goal is to inject a new plasma target and fire the pistons every second, creating pulses of fusion reactions as part of a self-sustaining process. This contrasts with ITER, which aims to create a single fusion reaction that can sustain itself. "One of the big risks to the project is nobody has compressed spheromaks to fusion-relevant conditions before," says Richardson. "There's no reason why it won't work, but nobody has ever proven it."
He says it look longer than expected to raise the money for the prototype project, but the company can now start the first phase of building the test reactor, including the development of 3-D simulations and the technical verification of components. General Fusion aims to complete the reactor and demonstrate net gain within five years, assuming it can raise another $37 million.
If successful, it believes it can build a grid-capable fusion reactor rated at 100 megawatts four years later for about $500 million, beating ITER by about 20 years and at a fraction of the cost.
"I usually pass up these quirky ideas that pass my way, but this one really fascinated me," says Fowler. He notes that there are immense challenges to overcome, but the culture of a private startup may be what it takes to tackle them with a sense of urgency. "In the big programs, especially the fusion ones, people have gotten beat up so much that they've become so risk averse."
General Fusion's basic approach isn't entirely new. It builds on work done during the 1980s by the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, based on a concept called Linus. The problem was that scientists couldn't figure out a fast-enough way to compress the plasma before it lost its donut-shaped magnetic confinement, a window of opportunity measured in milliseconds. Just like smoke rings, the plasma rings maintain their shape only momentarily before dispersing.
Nuclear-research giant General Atomics later came up with the idea of rapidly compressing the plasma using a mechanical ramming process that creates acoustic waves. But the company never followed through--likely because the technology to precisely control the speed and simultaneous triggering of the compressed-air pistons simply didn't exist two decades ago.
Richardson says that high-speed digital processing is readily available today, and General Fusion's mission over the next two to four years is to prove it can do the job. Before building a fully functional reactor with 220 pistons on a metal sphere, the company will first verify that smaller rings of 24 pistons can be synchronized to strike an outer metal shell.
Glen Wurden, program manager of fusion energy sciences at Los Alamos National Laboratory and an expert on magnetized target fusion, says General Fusion has a challenging road ahead and many questions to answer definitively. Can they produce spheromaks with the right densities, temperature, and life span? Can they inject two spheromaks into opposite ends of the vortex cavity and make sure they collide and merge? Will the acoustic waves travel uniformly through the liquid metal?
"You can do a good amount of it through simulations, but not all of it," says Wurden. "This is all very complex, state-of-the-art work. The problem is you're dealing with different timescales and different effects on materials when they're exposed to shock waves."
Los Alamos and General Fusion are collaborating as part of a recently signed research agreement. But Richardson isn't planning on a smooth ride. "The project has many risks," he says, "and we expect most of it to not perform exactly as expected." However, if the company can pull off its test reactor, it hopes to attract enough attention to easily raise the $500 million for a demonstration power plant.
Says Fowler, "Miracles do happen."
Copyright Technology Review 2009.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
White House to Push Forward on National Urban Policy Agenda
Administration to Host Daylong Talks Tomorrow;Tour of U.S. Cities Planned
By Robin Shulman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 12, 2009; 11:12 AM
After remaining out of the public eye since its creation in February, the White House Office of Urban Affairs plans on Monday to launch a public conversation to create a national urban policy agenda, said Adolfo Carrión Jr., its director.
The White House will host a daylong urban policy discussion including mayors, county executives, governors, urban policy experts, and heads of various agencies, Carrión said in a telephone interview yesterday .
President Obama is expected to address the conference and announce plans to send Carrión and other senior administration officials on a tour of American cities to discuss urban issues, Carrión said.
The conference is the first indication that the White House could back its urban policy office with the kind of muscle that Obama suggested during his campaign, before the economic collapse. He called for a new kind of urban policy to address cities and also their suburbs, and urban advocates hoped that this could be a focus of his administration's economic development approach.
"We have not had a national urban policy for decades," said Carrión. "Meanwhile, the economy has changed."
Those gathered Monday will consider local initiatives that could become best practices to emulate, with the goals of increasing the competitiveness, sustainable development and opportunity of metropolitan regions.
The conference is to present an interdisciplinary approach to urban issues and include the heads of the Departments of Labor, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Small Business Administration.
Carrión said discussion will include initiatives like Choice Neighborhoods, a new HUD program that provides poor neighborhoods not only with housing, but also social and economic benefits, like day care and farmers' markets; and Promise Neighborhoods, a Department of Education program modeled after the Harlem Children's Zone, to improve academic achievement and life skills by offering after school and weekend sports, social and arts activities.
The conference will include several dozen policy experts, including Bruce Katz, the director of the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, who developed some of the ideas that led to the creation of the Office of Urban Affairs. Bankers, planners, and advocates will also attend.
Meanwhile, the listening tour is to begin this month, said Carrión, and continue through the fall, reaching public school auditoriums and factory plants, and including developers, housing and environmental advocates, educators, health care providers, public safety officials, and local elected officials.
Analysts have said that the most important thing Carrión's office can do is outline a national agenda for metropolitan areas, after decades of federal inaction.
Carrión said the listening tour reflects Obama's philosophy that "the best solutions are in communities," where answers have "bubbled up" despite a lack of federal guidance and support.
Obama grew up in Honolulu and Jakarta, and forged his career in Chicago, as a community organizer, and he has been shaped by cities to a greater degree than any president in nearly a century.
"For too long government has operated from the top down," said Carrión. "We've always heard why does the national government send down these unfunded mandates, under funded mandates, mandates that are not necessarily universally applicable. The bottom-up approach speaks to the need for this to be flexible."
By Robin Shulman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 12, 2009; 11:12 AM
After remaining out of the public eye since its creation in February, the White House Office of Urban Affairs plans on Monday to launch a public conversation to create a national urban policy agenda, said Adolfo Carrión Jr., its director.
The White House will host a daylong urban policy discussion including mayors, county executives, governors, urban policy experts, and heads of various agencies, Carrión said in a telephone interview yesterday .
President Obama is expected to address the conference and announce plans to send Carrión and other senior administration officials on a tour of American cities to discuss urban issues, Carrión said.
The conference is the first indication that the White House could back its urban policy office with the kind of muscle that Obama suggested during his campaign, before the economic collapse. He called for a new kind of urban policy to address cities and also their suburbs, and urban advocates hoped that this could be a focus of his administration's economic development approach.
"We have not had a national urban policy for decades," said Carrión. "Meanwhile, the economy has changed."
Those gathered Monday will consider local initiatives that could become best practices to emulate, with the goals of increasing the competitiveness, sustainable development and opportunity of metropolitan regions.
The conference is to present an interdisciplinary approach to urban issues and include the heads of the Departments of Labor, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Small Business Administration.
Carrión said discussion will include initiatives like Choice Neighborhoods, a new HUD program that provides poor neighborhoods not only with housing, but also social and economic benefits, like day care and farmers' markets; and Promise Neighborhoods, a Department of Education program modeled after the Harlem Children's Zone, to improve academic achievement and life skills by offering after school and weekend sports, social and arts activities.
The conference will include several dozen policy experts, including Bruce Katz, the director of the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, who developed some of the ideas that led to the creation of the Office of Urban Affairs. Bankers, planners, and advocates will also attend.
Meanwhile, the listening tour is to begin this month, said Carrión, and continue through the fall, reaching public school auditoriums and factory plants, and including developers, housing and environmental advocates, educators, health care providers, public safety officials, and local elected officials.
Analysts have said that the most important thing Carrión's office can do is outline a national agenda for metropolitan areas, after decades of federal inaction.
Carrión said the listening tour reflects Obama's philosophy that "the best solutions are in communities," where answers have "bubbled up" despite a lack of federal guidance and support.
Obama grew up in Honolulu and Jakarta, and forged his career in Chicago, as a community organizer, and he has been shaped by cities to a greater degree than any president in nearly a century.
"For too long government has operated from the top down," said Carrión. "We've always heard why does the national government send down these unfunded mandates, under funded mandates, mandates that are not necessarily universally applicable. The bottom-up approach speaks to the need for this to be flexible."
Eco-friendly light bulbs flip switch on problems
Ann Geracimos – Washington Times
July 20, 2009
An energy efficiency measure is turning into a ticking time bomb.
The federal government plans to require consumers over the next several years to replace incandescent light bulbs with more expensive but more energy-efficient and longer-lasting compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs).
But improper disposal of the mercury-powered bulbs poses an environmental hazard, and the federal government has given little guidance to consumers. The outlets for safe disposal are few and haphazard, and history suggests that compliance will be spotty.
"The problem to the environment comes when millions get disposed of and the cumulative effect becomes problematic. That is when the [Environmental Protection Agency] gets concerned," said Neal Langerman, a former chairman of the American Chemical Society Division of Chemical Health and Safety. "If you have a municipal urban landfill and have a population of 450,000 households disposing of one or two CFLs a year - you do the arithmetic. Put one-half milligram of mercury per bulb, it amounts to a significant loading, and mercury does migrate into groundwater."
Although California has banned CFLs from trash since 2006, local governments there estimate that less than 10 percent of CFLs receive proper disposal and recycling, said San Francisco's KGO-TV.
Revised standards for home appliances and lighting under the December 2007 energy bill require incandescent light bulbs - the basic model that has been used for 130 years - to be phased out in order to achieve about 25 percent greater efficiency for bulbs by 2014 and about 200 percent greater efficiency by 2020.
Without organized programs to educate consumers on safe handling and disposal of used or broken bulbs, landfills are likely to become even more polluted, Mr. Langerman told The Washington Times.
"The appropriate thing for us as a nation is not to dispose but have an aggressive take-back program," said Mr. Langerman, who advocates a profit incentive for recycling, a system where "if you go out of your way [to safely dispose or recycle the bulbs] you get some money back. People will do this if made convenient."
The federal Web site Energy Star (www.energystar.gov) notes that each CFL bulb contains an average of 4 milligrams of mercury, compared with the 500 milligrams contained in old-style glass thermometers. None of the mercury is released in operation, and leakage is a risk only if the bulbs are broken.
The site says "electricity use is the main source of mercury emissions in the U.S.," so it's important that CFLs use less electricity than incandescent lights. The EPA says that "a 13-watt, 8,000-rated-hour-life CFL (60-watt equivalent; a common light bulb type)" will save enough energy over its lifetime to offset even all of its mercury leakage into landfills.
EPA spokeswoman Tisha Petteway wrote in an e-mail: "Once a CFL or a fluorescent lamp is at the end of its life, EPA strongly encourages Americans to recycle it."
The CFLs sold at supermarkets and drugstores have small warnings that the bulbs contain mercury. A 13-watt model from General Electric Co. does not elaborate on the risks beyond telling consumers to "manage in accord with disposal laws." The packaging refers buyers to a recycling information Web site (www.lamprecycle.org) and provides a toll-free phone number.
Breaking a thermometer "can raise mercury levels in a tight bedroom to high enough levels to cause symptoms in a child in a short amount of time," Mr. Langerman said. "The biggest difference is the amount of ventilation."
No federal mandate requires households to recycle or safely dispose of such bulbs. The massive energy bill in Congress offers no guidance on the question of disposal, and the subject has generated little discussion during debate. That leaves this issue subject to a hodgepodge of state and local rules, some more serious than others about regulation.
The EPA gives consumers advice about finding safe disposal and recycling facilities across the country on its Web site www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/wastetypes/universal/lamps/live.htm.
D.C. residents, for example, are directed to trash transfer stations in Northeast. Contractors accept items for recycling from those with proof of local residency or from vehicles with D.C. license plates.
The two D.C. stations take recyclables only on Saturdays from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. A total of "620 unit pounds" of CFL bulbs and mercury lamps were dropped off in an eight-month period since collection was made available last year, said Nancy Lyons, a spokeswoman for the D.C. Department of Public Works.
Home Depot, Ace Hardware, Ikea and other retailers collect the bulbs for recycling as a customer service.
Chris Jensen, the employee in charge of lighting supplies at Frager's Hardware on Capitol Hill, said the store considered offering a disposal center but found that it would cost "one grand a month."
The store advises customers to go to Prudential Carruthers Realtors sales office at 216 Seventh St. SE, where bulbs can be dropped off for recycling in a cardboard box with a heavy plastic liner.
Prudential manager Larry Kamins said the office periodically buys the package for $95 from a professional recycling company he found on the Internet. He said he decided to offer the community service because, when he started using the bulbs, he couldn't find any information on recycling locations.
"They certainly don't go out of their way" for this, Mr. Kamins said.
He said people often drop off bulbs on his doorstep overnight and that a Capitol Hill resident voluntarily collects used bulbs from neighbors and brings them to Prudential.
Mark Kohorst, senior manager for environment, health and safety at the Rosslyn-based National Electrical Manufacturers Association, said federal business regulations classify mercury-containing lamps as a subcategory of hazardous waste.
"A nationwide network of recyclers exists to serve that sector," he said.
The rule exempts households but gives states the right to adopt the federal law and apply it to households, thereby making it illegal for anyone to dispose of the bulbs in any way other than recycling.
Mr. Kohorst said Maine has enacted "the first law of its kind requiring manufacturers to fund recycling," forcing the development and implementation of state-approved programs by January. Manufacturers that do no comply will not be allowed to sell the lamps in Maine.
"We do need a national program because what good does it do for California to ban it" when neighboring states don't, said Leonard Robinson, chief deputy director of California's Department of Toxic Substances Control.
He plans to address the subject when he visits Washington with Energy Secretary Steven Chu, "a Californian," he said, who "knows the situation."
A pilot project in Humboldt County in Northern California allows households to mail used bulbs directly to a recycler, he said.
With the cooperation of the U.S. Postal Service and funding provided by Pacific Gas & Electric Co., about 58,000 residences have used direct shipment since February, he said. "That takes care of the rural people, because not everybody has a Wal-Mart or Ikea nearby."
New compact fluorescent light bulbs that carry the "Energy Star Qualified" label are supposed to last up to 10 times longer than incandescent bulbs and use one-quarter of the energy to produce the same amount of light. Although the CFLs numbers are higher, the bulbs save money because they last longer.
Mr. Jensen noted, however, that most CFLs on the market don't work with motion sensors or "dusk to dawn" fixtures, "and many models warn they are 'not for use with dimmers.' "
Lane Burt, an energy policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council's Washington office, said CFL bulbs are just "a stopover" before an even more efficient type of light bulb arrives.
"Everyone should know where we want to go is LEDs [light-emitting diodes]. They are much more efficient and costs are coming down quickly. They have improved tenfold in the past decade."
July 20, 2009
An energy efficiency measure is turning into a ticking time bomb.
The federal government plans to require consumers over the next several years to replace incandescent light bulbs with more expensive but more energy-efficient and longer-lasting compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs).
But improper disposal of the mercury-powered bulbs poses an environmental hazard, and the federal government has given little guidance to consumers. The outlets for safe disposal are few and haphazard, and history suggests that compliance will be spotty.
"The problem to the environment comes when millions get disposed of and the cumulative effect becomes problematic. That is when the [Environmental Protection Agency] gets concerned," said Neal Langerman, a former chairman of the American Chemical Society Division of Chemical Health and Safety. "If you have a municipal urban landfill and have a population of 450,000 households disposing of one or two CFLs a year - you do the arithmetic. Put one-half milligram of mercury per bulb, it amounts to a significant loading, and mercury does migrate into groundwater."
Although California has banned CFLs from trash since 2006, local governments there estimate that less than 10 percent of CFLs receive proper disposal and recycling, said San Francisco's KGO-TV.
Revised standards for home appliances and lighting under the December 2007 energy bill require incandescent light bulbs - the basic model that has been used for 130 years - to be phased out in order to achieve about 25 percent greater efficiency for bulbs by 2014 and about 200 percent greater efficiency by 2020.
Without organized programs to educate consumers on safe handling and disposal of used or broken bulbs, landfills are likely to become even more polluted, Mr. Langerman told The Washington Times.
"The appropriate thing for us as a nation is not to dispose but have an aggressive take-back program," said Mr. Langerman, who advocates a profit incentive for recycling, a system where "if you go out of your way [to safely dispose or recycle the bulbs] you get some money back. People will do this if made convenient."
The federal Web site Energy Star (www.energystar.gov) notes that each CFL bulb contains an average of 4 milligrams of mercury, compared with the 500 milligrams contained in old-style glass thermometers. None of the mercury is released in operation, and leakage is a risk only if the bulbs are broken.
The site says "electricity use is the main source of mercury emissions in the U.S.," so it's important that CFLs use less electricity than incandescent lights. The EPA says that "a 13-watt, 8,000-rated-hour-life CFL (60-watt equivalent; a common light bulb type)" will save enough energy over its lifetime to offset even all of its mercury leakage into landfills.
EPA spokeswoman Tisha Petteway wrote in an e-mail: "Once a CFL or a fluorescent lamp is at the end of its life, EPA strongly encourages Americans to recycle it."
The CFLs sold at supermarkets and drugstores have small warnings that the bulbs contain mercury. A 13-watt model from General Electric Co. does not elaborate on the risks beyond telling consumers to "manage in accord with disposal laws." The packaging refers buyers to a recycling information Web site (www.lamprecycle.org) and provides a toll-free phone number.
Breaking a thermometer "can raise mercury levels in a tight bedroom to high enough levels to cause symptoms in a child in a short amount of time," Mr. Langerman said. "The biggest difference is the amount of ventilation."
No federal mandate requires households to recycle or safely dispose of such bulbs. The massive energy bill in Congress offers no guidance on the question of disposal, and the subject has generated little discussion during debate. That leaves this issue subject to a hodgepodge of state and local rules, some more serious than others about regulation.
The EPA gives consumers advice about finding safe disposal and recycling facilities across the country on its Web site www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/wastetypes/universal/lamps/live.htm.
D.C. residents, for example, are directed to trash transfer stations in Northeast. Contractors accept items for recycling from those with proof of local residency or from vehicles with D.C. license plates.
The two D.C. stations take recyclables only on Saturdays from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. A total of "620 unit pounds" of CFL bulbs and mercury lamps were dropped off in an eight-month period since collection was made available last year, said Nancy Lyons, a spokeswoman for the D.C. Department of Public Works.
Home Depot, Ace Hardware, Ikea and other retailers collect the bulbs for recycling as a customer service.
Chris Jensen, the employee in charge of lighting supplies at Frager's Hardware on Capitol Hill, said the store considered offering a disposal center but found that it would cost "one grand a month."
The store advises customers to go to Prudential Carruthers Realtors sales office at 216 Seventh St. SE, where bulbs can be dropped off for recycling in a cardboard box with a heavy plastic liner.
Prudential manager Larry Kamins said the office periodically buys the package for $95 from a professional recycling company he found on the Internet. He said he decided to offer the community service because, when he started using the bulbs, he couldn't find any information on recycling locations.
"They certainly don't go out of their way" for this, Mr. Kamins said.
He said people often drop off bulbs on his doorstep overnight and that a Capitol Hill resident voluntarily collects used bulbs from neighbors and brings them to Prudential.
Mark Kohorst, senior manager for environment, health and safety at the Rosslyn-based National Electrical Manufacturers Association, said federal business regulations classify mercury-containing lamps as a subcategory of hazardous waste.
"A nationwide network of recyclers exists to serve that sector," he said.
The rule exempts households but gives states the right to adopt the federal law and apply it to households, thereby making it illegal for anyone to dispose of the bulbs in any way other than recycling.
Mr. Kohorst said Maine has enacted "the first law of its kind requiring manufacturers to fund recycling," forcing the development and implementation of state-approved programs by January. Manufacturers that do no comply will not be allowed to sell the lamps in Maine.
"We do need a national program because what good does it do for California to ban it" when neighboring states don't, said Leonard Robinson, chief deputy director of California's Department of Toxic Substances Control.
He plans to address the subject when he visits Washington with Energy Secretary Steven Chu, "a Californian," he said, who "knows the situation."
A pilot project in Humboldt County in Northern California allows households to mail used bulbs directly to a recycler, he said.
With the cooperation of the U.S. Postal Service and funding provided by Pacific Gas & Electric Co., about 58,000 residences have used direct shipment since February, he said. "That takes care of the rural people, because not everybody has a Wal-Mart or Ikea nearby."
New compact fluorescent light bulbs that carry the "Energy Star Qualified" label are supposed to last up to 10 times longer than incandescent bulbs and use one-quarter of the energy to produce the same amount of light. Although the CFLs numbers are higher, the bulbs save money because they last longer.
Mr. Jensen noted, however, that most CFLs on the market don't work with motion sensors or "dusk to dawn" fixtures, "and many models warn they are 'not for use with dimmers.' "
Lane Burt, an energy policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council's Washington office, said CFL bulbs are just "a stopover" before an even more efficient type of light bulb arrives.
"Everyone should know where we want to go is LEDs [light-emitting diodes]. They are much more efficient and costs are coming down quickly. They have improved tenfold in the past decade."
Friday, July 17, 2009
Congressional Hearing on Transportation's Role in Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
July 14, 2009
Excerpt:
Addressing VMT growth plays a key role in decreasing transportation related GHG emissions and should be included in overall efforts to prevent climate change. One way to achieve significant reductions in VMT is to develop more livable communities. The effects of reduced VMT on greenhouse gas emissions have repeatedly been demonstrated. A report aired on National Public Radio evaluated the carbon footprint of two families living in Atlanta. One family moved from a walkable, transit-served community to a car dependent one and another family moved from a car dependent area to a livable community. The greatest difference in CO2 emissions between the families was in transportation related emissions. The carbon footprint for the family that moved to a car dependent area was 40 percent higher, and transportation accounted for almost 85 percent of the difference. This report, among others, indicates the relevance of VMT to greenhouse gas emissions and indicates that we should accelerate our efforts to identify ways to reduce VMT growth in order to meet our climate goals.
There are several steps that can be taken to spur the development of more livable communities and reduce VMT:
First, we can provide more transportation choices in more communities across the country. Single occupancy vehicles should be only one of many transportation options available to Americans to reach their destinations. Walking, bicycling, light rail and buses can be made available in more places.
Second, we can promote development of housing in close proximity to transit. In addition to reducing VMT and greenhouse gas emissions from cars driven by commuters, such planning would have the added benefits of decreasing transportation costs for families and reducing traffic congestion.
Third, we can promote mixed-use development, which incorporates residential and commercial buildings, allowing individuals the choice to walk, drive a shorter distance or easily use public transportation to reach their destination. Residents should have the option to live in an area with services and goods that are easily accessible. In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, this would also reduce travel times involved in driving to and from grocery and department stores, medical service providers or even entertainment centers such as movie theaters.
While many view community planning and multi-modal transportation as affecting only urban or larger suburban areas, there are many ways in which such provisions would benefit smaller towns and rural areas as well. A strong, well planned town center could provide smaller towns or rural communities with easy access to jobs and services in one centralized location and increase foot traffic around locally owned small businesses. These town centers will also protect open spaces and valuable farmland. Additionally, all people, whether in urban or rural areas, need access to job centers, medical services and schools. In urban settings this access might take the form of sidewalks and bike lanes. In rural areas, it might look more like intercity rail and bus service. But, especially as populations age, non-driving access to essential services is increasingly central to making towns more livable for 21st century populations. This poses a particular challenge for rural areas.
All of these factors will be critical elements of our livability initiative. Our work will not be easy, but it offers great promise for improving the lives of all Americans and reducing our use of energy and greenhouse gas emissions. The Department of Transportation and other agencies are already working closely to determine the best means to support sustainable, livable communities.
On June 16, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, and I announced a new partnership to help American families in all communities - rural, suburban and urban - develop sustainable communities. Over the course of our collective work, we have defined six guiding principles. We are committed to
• providing more transportation choices,
• promoting equitable, affordable housing,
• enhancing economic competitiveness,
• supporting existing communities,
• coordinating policies and leverage investment, and
• valuing the uniqueness of communities and neighborhoods.
These principles will guide the interagency working group as we continue our efforts.
As we consider surface transportation reauthorization -- both in the short and longer-term -- the Department will prioritize creating a livability program that measurably works to reduce VMT, greenhouse gas emissions, and also provide added economic benefits to Americans in all geographic locations. Multi-modal transportation combined with mixed-use development and smart community planning are important issues to address when we consider transportation’s role in climate change. Combined with more efficient vehicles and cleaner burning fuels, these strategies will be important to reaching our GHG reduction goals. They will also reduce our reliance on foreign oil
The Senate now has the opportunity, for the first time, to create a system of clean energy incentives designed to jumpstart a clean energy economy and confront the threat of carbon pollution. As the President has said, it is important that we accomplish these goals while protecting consumers, and helping sensitive industries transition. I have outlined in my testimony today some of the ways in which the Department of Transportation can contribute to this effort. We would be particularly pleased if the final legislation gave the Department better tools to integrate climate change considerations into the transportation planning, financing, and implementation process and to facilitate system improvements. Failing to recognize the connection between transportation and climate change will likely jeopardize our ability to achieve our GHG reduction goals.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=2127b852-f4ce-437c-83a1-1eda266059ab
Excerpt:
Addressing VMT growth plays a key role in decreasing transportation related GHG emissions and should be included in overall efforts to prevent climate change. One way to achieve significant reductions in VMT is to develop more livable communities. The effects of reduced VMT on greenhouse gas emissions have repeatedly been demonstrated. A report aired on National Public Radio evaluated the carbon footprint of two families living in Atlanta. One family moved from a walkable, transit-served community to a car dependent one and another family moved from a car dependent area to a livable community. The greatest difference in CO2 emissions between the families was in transportation related emissions. The carbon footprint for the family that moved to a car dependent area was 40 percent higher, and transportation accounted for almost 85 percent of the difference. This report, among others, indicates the relevance of VMT to greenhouse gas emissions and indicates that we should accelerate our efforts to identify ways to reduce VMT growth in order to meet our climate goals.
There are several steps that can be taken to spur the development of more livable communities and reduce VMT:
First, we can provide more transportation choices in more communities across the country. Single occupancy vehicles should be only one of many transportation options available to Americans to reach their destinations. Walking, bicycling, light rail and buses can be made available in more places.
Second, we can promote development of housing in close proximity to transit. In addition to reducing VMT and greenhouse gas emissions from cars driven by commuters, such planning would have the added benefits of decreasing transportation costs for families and reducing traffic congestion.
Third, we can promote mixed-use development, which incorporates residential and commercial buildings, allowing individuals the choice to walk, drive a shorter distance or easily use public transportation to reach their destination. Residents should have the option to live in an area with services and goods that are easily accessible. In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, this would also reduce travel times involved in driving to and from grocery and department stores, medical service providers or even entertainment centers such as movie theaters.
While many view community planning and multi-modal transportation as affecting only urban or larger suburban areas, there are many ways in which such provisions would benefit smaller towns and rural areas as well. A strong, well planned town center could provide smaller towns or rural communities with easy access to jobs and services in one centralized location and increase foot traffic around locally owned small businesses. These town centers will also protect open spaces and valuable farmland. Additionally, all people, whether in urban or rural areas, need access to job centers, medical services and schools. In urban settings this access might take the form of sidewalks and bike lanes. In rural areas, it might look more like intercity rail and bus service. But, especially as populations age, non-driving access to essential services is increasingly central to making towns more livable for 21st century populations. This poses a particular challenge for rural areas.
All of these factors will be critical elements of our livability initiative. Our work will not be easy, but it offers great promise for improving the lives of all Americans and reducing our use of energy and greenhouse gas emissions. The Department of Transportation and other agencies are already working closely to determine the best means to support sustainable, livable communities.
On June 16, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, and I announced a new partnership to help American families in all communities - rural, suburban and urban - develop sustainable communities. Over the course of our collective work, we have defined six guiding principles. We are committed to
• providing more transportation choices,
• promoting equitable, affordable housing,
• enhancing economic competitiveness,
• supporting existing communities,
• coordinating policies and leverage investment, and
• valuing the uniqueness of communities and neighborhoods.
These principles will guide the interagency working group as we continue our efforts.
As we consider surface transportation reauthorization -- both in the short and longer-term -- the Department will prioritize creating a livability program that measurably works to reduce VMT, greenhouse gas emissions, and also provide added economic benefits to Americans in all geographic locations. Multi-modal transportation combined with mixed-use development and smart community planning are important issues to address when we consider transportation’s role in climate change. Combined with more efficient vehicles and cleaner burning fuels, these strategies will be important to reaching our GHG reduction goals. They will also reduce our reliance on foreign oil
The Senate now has the opportunity, for the first time, to create a system of clean energy incentives designed to jumpstart a clean energy economy and confront the threat of carbon pollution. As the President has said, it is important that we accomplish these goals while protecting consumers, and helping sensitive industries transition. I have outlined in my testimony today some of the ways in which the Department of Transportation can contribute to this effort. We would be particularly pleased if the final legislation gave the Department better tools to integrate climate change considerations into the transportation planning, financing, and implementation process and to facilitate system improvements. Failing to recognize the connection between transportation and climate change will likely jeopardize our ability to achieve our GHG reduction goals.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=2127b852-f4ce-437c-83a1-1eda266059ab
Friday, July 10, 2009
Feed-in tariff and spate of other climate-related bills move forward
Debra Kahn – ClimateWire
July 9, 2009
A bill that would boost the state's feed-in tariff to apply to renewable energy projects larger than 1.5 megawatts passed a key California Senate committee this week.
A.B. 1106, by state Rep. Felipe Fuentes (D), would establish two tiers of profits for renewable energy generators selling electricity to utilities. The first tier would include projects up to 5 megawatts, while the second would encompass those from 5 to 10 MW. Utilities would only have to offer the guaranteed pricing for up to 500 MW of generation total.
Both tiers would boost the guaranteed price by a few cents above the current level, which is the 20-year levelized cost of electricity from a combined-cycle gas turbine. The California Public Utilities Commission would be in charge of determining the costs of production plus a "reasonable profit" for each form of renewable energy: solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, wind, biogas, biomass, hydropower and geothermal.
Adam Browning, executive director of the Vote Solar Initiative, said the bill will likely be revised substantially before it passes the full Senate.
It differs from a proposal the state Public Utilities Commission made last month, which calls for a cap of 10 MW per project and a program-wide cap of 1500MW. The agency is planning to request comments within a few weeks on how to determine pricing.
The bill is moving ahead despite CPUC's request in May for legislators to wait until the agency finishes its proceedings. "It was only let through with the understanding that there would be a lot of changes to it," Browning said.
The Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee also passed bills dealing with overall renewable energy targets, energy efficiency audits and spending proceeds from a potential cap-and-trade auction.
Passing the committee Tuesday were Sen. Paul Krekorian's (D) bill establishing a 33 percent renewable portfolio standard, A.B. 64, and A.B. 758, requiring the state Energy Commission to develop a plan to reduce energy use in existing residential and commercial buildings, as well as requiring utilities to perform a certain number of low-cost energy efficiency audits annually.
It also approved A.B. 1405, which would establish a fund for low-income communities directly affected by climate change. Thirty percent of the state's revenue from auctioning cap-and-trade CO2 allowances would go into the fund.
July 9, 2009
A bill that would boost the state's feed-in tariff to apply to renewable energy projects larger than 1.5 megawatts passed a key California Senate committee this week.
A.B. 1106, by state Rep. Felipe Fuentes (D), would establish two tiers of profits for renewable energy generators selling electricity to utilities. The first tier would include projects up to 5 megawatts, while the second would encompass those from 5 to 10 MW. Utilities would only have to offer the guaranteed pricing for up to 500 MW of generation total.
Both tiers would boost the guaranteed price by a few cents above the current level, which is the 20-year levelized cost of electricity from a combined-cycle gas turbine. The California Public Utilities Commission would be in charge of determining the costs of production plus a "reasonable profit" for each form of renewable energy: solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, wind, biogas, biomass, hydropower and geothermal.
Adam Browning, executive director of the Vote Solar Initiative, said the bill will likely be revised substantially before it passes the full Senate.
It differs from a proposal the state Public Utilities Commission made last month, which calls for a cap of 10 MW per project and a program-wide cap of 1500MW. The agency is planning to request comments within a few weeks on how to determine pricing.
The bill is moving ahead despite CPUC's request in May for legislators to wait until the agency finishes its proceedings. "It was only let through with the understanding that there would be a lot of changes to it," Browning said.
The Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee also passed bills dealing with overall renewable energy targets, energy efficiency audits and spending proceeds from a potential cap-and-trade auction.
Passing the committee Tuesday were Sen. Paul Krekorian's (D) bill establishing a 33 percent renewable portfolio standard, A.B. 64, and A.B. 758, requiring the state Energy Commission to develop a plan to reduce energy use in existing residential and commercial buildings, as well as requiring utilities to perform a certain number of low-cost energy efficiency audits annually.
It also approved A.B. 1405, which would establish a fund for low-income communities directly affected by climate change. Thirty percent of the state's revenue from auctioning cap-and-trade CO2 allowances would go into the fund.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Solar for Dark Climates
Technology Review Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Solar technology that generates both heat and electricity could make solar energy practical in places that aren't sunny.
By Kevin Bullis
Cool Energy, a startup based in Boulder, CO, is developing a system that produces heat and electricity from the sun. It could help make solar energy competitive with conventional sources of energy in relatively dark and cold climates, such as the northern half of the United States and countries such as Canada and Germany.
The company's system combines a conventional solar water heater with a new Stirling-engine-based generator that it is developing. In cool months, the solar heater provides hot water and space heating. In warmer months, excess heat is used to drive the Stirling engine and generate electricity.
Samuel Weaver, the company's president and CEO, says that the system is more economical than solar water heaters alone because it makes use of heat that would otherwise be wasted during summer months. The system will also pay for itself about twice as quickly as conventional solar photovoltaics will, he says. That's in part because it can efficiently offset heating bills in the winter--something that photovoltaics can't do--and in part because the evacuated tubes used to collect heat from the sun make better use of diffuse light than conventional solar panels do.
The system is designed to provide almost all of a house's heating needs. But the generator, which will produce only 1.5 kilowatts of power, won't be enough to power a house on its own. The system is designed to work with power from the grid, although the power is enough to run a refrigerator and a few lights in the event of a power failure.
The company's key innovation is the Stirling engine, which is designed to work at temperatures much lower than ordinary Stirling engines. In these engines, a piston is driven by heating up one side of the engine while keeping the opposite side cool. Ordinarily, the engines require temperatures of above 500 °C, but Cool Energy's engine is designed to run at the 200 degrees that solar water heaters provide.
The success of the technology, however, hinges on achieving the efficiency targets, says Dean Kamen, the inventor of the Segway, who is developing high-temperature Stirling engines for other applications, including transportation. "We need data," he says. The company's second prototype was only 10 percent efficient at converting heat into electricity. Its engineers hope to reach 20 percent with a new prototype.
A Stirling engine's efficiency is limited by the difference in temperature between the cool and hot side. Typically, reaching the necessary high temperatures using sunlight requires mirrors and lenses for concentrating the light and tracking systems for keeping the concentrators pointed at the sun. The concentrators require direct sunlight, so they don't work on overcast days, and they're too bulky to be mounted on the roof of a house.
To make a practical Stirling engine that runs at low temperatures and doesn't require concentrators, the engineers at Cool Energy addressed a problem with conventional engines that leads to wasted energy: heat leaks from the hot side of the system to the cool side, lowering the temperature difference between them. This happens because the materials required for high temperatures and pressures--typically metals--conduct heat. Working at lower temperatures, the engineers concluded, allows them to use materials such as plastics and certain ceramics that don't conduct heat, reducing these losses. These materials also help lower costs: they're cheaper than some of the metals typically used, and they don't require lubrication, improving the reliability of the engines and reducing maintenance costs.
Cool Energy's engineers are currently assembling the company's third prototype, which they say will allow them to reach their efficiency targets by the end of this summer, after which they plan to test pilot systems outside the lab. Within two years, they plan to manufacture enough systems to drive costs down and achieve their payback targets.
Copyright Technology Review 2009.
Solar technology that generates both heat and electricity could make solar energy practical in places that aren't sunny.
By Kevin Bullis
Cool Energy, a startup based in Boulder, CO, is developing a system that produces heat and electricity from the sun. It could help make solar energy competitive with conventional sources of energy in relatively dark and cold climates, such as the northern half of the United States and countries such as Canada and Germany.
The company's system combines a conventional solar water heater with a new Stirling-engine-based generator that it is developing. In cool months, the solar heater provides hot water and space heating. In warmer months, excess heat is used to drive the Stirling engine and generate electricity.
Samuel Weaver, the company's president and CEO, says that the system is more economical than solar water heaters alone because it makes use of heat that would otherwise be wasted during summer months. The system will also pay for itself about twice as quickly as conventional solar photovoltaics will, he says. That's in part because it can efficiently offset heating bills in the winter--something that photovoltaics can't do--and in part because the evacuated tubes used to collect heat from the sun make better use of diffuse light than conventional solar panels do.
The system is designed to provide almost all of a house's heating needs. But the generator, which will produce only 1.5 kilowatts of power, won't be enough to power a house on its own. The system is designed to work with power from the grid, although the power is enough to run a refrigerator and a few lights in the event of a power failure.
The company's key innovation is the Stirling engine, which is designed to work at temperatures much lower than ordinary Stirling engines. In these engines, a piston is driven by heating up one side of the engine while keeping the opposite side cool. Ordinarily, the engines require temperatures of above 500 °C, but Cool Energy's engine is designed to run at the 200 degrees that solar water heaters provide.
The success of the technology, however, hinges on achieving the efficiency targets, says Dean Kamen, the inventor of the Segway, who is developing high-temperature Stirling engines for other applications, including transportation. "We need data," he says. The company's second prototype was only 10 percent efficient at converting heat into electricity. Its engineers hope to reach 20 percent with a new prototype.
A Stirling engine's efficiency is limited by the difference in temperature between the cool and hot side. Typically, reaching the necessary high temperatures using sunlight requires mirrors and lenses for concentrating the light and tracking systems for keeping the concentrators pointed at the sun. The concentrators require direct sunlight, so they don't work on overcast days, and they're too bulky to be mounted on the roof of a house.
To make a practical Stirling engine that runs at low temperatures and doesn't require concentrators, the engineers at Cool Energy addressed a problem with conventional engines that leads to wasted energy: heat leaks from the hot side of the system to the cool side, lowering the temperature difference between them. This happens because the materials required for high temperatures and pressures--typically metals--conduct heat. Working at lower temperatures, the engineers concluded, allows them to use materials such as plastics and certain ceramics that don't conduct heat, reducing these losses. These materials also help lower costs: they're cheaper than some of the metals typically used, and they don't require lubrication, improving the reliability of the engines and reducing maintenance costs.
Cool Energy's engineers are currently assembling the company's third prototype, which they say will allow them to reach their efficiency targets by the end of this summer, after which they plan to test pilot systems outside the lab. Within two years, they plan to manufacture enough systems to drive costs down and achieve their payback targets.
Copyright Technology Review 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
