Energy prizes re-energized

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 02:52:27 GMT

Well, we can build all the energy efficient cars we want but nothing beats self-sufficient communal homes with things like sub-industrial-scale workshops and professionally-equipped offices that can allow us to work 'productively' right from our own homes! No lost commuting time, no daycare services needed, far less vehicle expenditures and less impact on the environment... Our communities also need smaller footprints and more jobs right where people live. The fact that there isn't makes me wonder who wrote local building codes to prevent it?

Hydrogen and ethanol are only temporary solutions until ultra-efficient battery technology replaces the need for any portable fuel at all. We're best off powering our own cars from the solar and wind generators of our own homes!

Energy prizes re-energized

Alan Boyle — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 02:58:18 GMT

It's funny that you should mention ultra-efficient batteries, Chris ... I was just catching up with this article from the MIT Technology Review about ultra-efficient batteries:

http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18086

Energy prizes re-energized

Chris E. — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 03:42:02 GMT

Holy Hannah Alan…! I started to get goose bumps reading: "Pound for pound, it will also pack 10 times the punch of lead-acid batteries (2.3 x lithium-ion) at half the cost and without the need for toxic materials or chemicals.” "By some estimates, it would only require $9 worth of electricity for an EESU-powered vehicle to travel 500 miles…" A game-changer to say the least! The charge time of only 10 minutes was for a small battery but still… Safe, better able to regenerate just using brakes, little degredation over the life of the car. The article even seemed to hint that more performance was possible in the future! Sure hope they can overcome the 'possible' minimum temp. (–20C) and longevity issues if indeed it has those problems as was 'speculated!' I'm blown away to say the least!

Energy prizes re-energized

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 04:58:13 GMT

Alan - the EEStor battery seems to be a step in the right direction. Can the nano-battery be far behind? Will anything be produced in time to contend with global warming? We need something right now to produce enough Oxygen to balance out our over-dependence on Carbon Dioxide emissions.

Energy prizes re-energized

Paul J.S. Beaubien Victoria British Columbia Canada — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 07:14:32 GMT

To this point in time electromagnetic energy is not fully understood because till his mathematics were developed there was no way to completely map the reality ; once the technological manifestation occurs George Jetson will be real so to speak . + Time is linear, space is curved + Cheers from the author of the Mathematics of Peace

Energy prizes re-energized

Guy S. Newell, Niles, MI — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:58:22 GMT

Hydrogen fuel cells is a battery technology. Let's not get confused on this important issue. Hydrogen is not a source of energy. In fact, a hydrogen fuel cell is just a battery that can be recharged by refueling with hydrogen. I know that sounds like a Microsoft Help page, but it's the truth.

Fuel cells are just a convenient way to power cars with coal or nuclear energy. Much more to the point would be a prize to discover a means of producing free radical hydrogen that actually has a smaller carbon foot-print than a present-day gas burner.

If all you want to do is solve the political problem of buying oil from people who hate us, then by all means, burn coal to produce electricity to produce hydrogen. If, however, you want to solve the greenhouse gas problem, then hydrogen is not a solution.

Energy prizes re-energized

Burton Colter, Brandon Canada — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:15:54 GMT

Our infrastructures are built around the automobile... This is the fundamental problem! Chris E above nails it on the head!

Energy prizes re-energized

Markus J. Q. Roberts — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:11:47 GMT

My favorite is still space-based solar. We have more energy streaming past us than we could possibly use, even if we were to raise the whole world population to a standard of living far better than the richest people in the US now enjoy. --MarkusQ

Energy prizes re-energized

Don Gillespie — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:15:45 GMT

The most under reported, and therefore, the best kept secret of all these alternative energy sources in Anhydrous Ammonia; NH3. This energy carrier has physical properties much like those of Propane and has a better (recoverable) energy density. Furthermore, it will burn in a standard off the end of the manufacturer's production line engine. Of course, the fuel admission system and the ECM require modification but this is simply and inexpensively done.

Will it work or is this just another unsubstantiated pie in the sky proposal? Of course it works! We have been driving such an Ammonia fueled vehicle for more then three years!

Think of this; this vehicle meets the California clean air requirements for 2009 right now!

Cheers,
Don Gillespie

Energy prizes re-energized

Patrick Bishop, Caldwell, NJ — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:16:56 GMT

Hi Alan,

I like these X-prize type projects much better than a lot of traditional programs (SBIRs for instance) because their benefits are twofold.

First, there is the "inventive incentive" to solve a technical problem in exchange for a cash prize. Second, and just as important, is that the projects generate so much excitement that they also cultivate the market's receptivity to winning technologies.

We get a solved problem and a high probability of market adoption. That's what I call a beautiful thing.

EEStor's ultracapacitor technology was featured in a Business 2.0 article last year, and mentioned a patent (#7033406, for your perusal). I hope it pans out, but it won't if they can't keep the cost and weight down to their claims; otherwise, ultracapacitors have been around for quite a while actually.

I'm still waiting to see a $10 million + prize to make it worth my while to enter the fray. Until then, the world is "just gonna hafta" wait to see my integrated Buckminsterfulleresque solution to the energy/housing/agriculture/water/waste management problem...assuming I have one.

Keep safe,
Patrick Bishop

Energy prizes re-energized

Al Schroeder, Cleveland, OH — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:18:24 GMT

We need a real energy policy that does an overall energy balance from cradle to grave so we don't waste time and resources debating the technologies that make no sense. Once we do this, it will clearly show that for the next 100 years, ethanol and hydrogen powered cars make no sense.

Ethanol consumes more energy then it makes. And where do you get the H2 from? From oil, water is not an option unless you build lots of nuclear power plants to produce H2 from water. An overall energy balance will show that it is less effecient to produce and burn H2 than burning gasoline direct. Electric cars are even less efficient and pollute more then current gasoline burning cars if you use coal fired power plants as your incremental source of power which is the most likely scenario.

So what should we do? We can make cars far lighter and far more efficient then they are now. Using a turbine engine coupled with electric motors/generators and batteries we can nearly triple the efficiency of current cars. Couple this with getting 1500 lbs of weight out of a car and we can build full size cars that get 60+ miles to the gallon. This addresses the issue of oil dependence and goes a long way to reducing green house gases and is a doable strategy for the next 100 years.

We also need to revive our nuclear power program. There are new designs that are much safer then current plants. We needs to be built one, perfect it and then cookie cut to build several 100 others. The only other possibility is to build the new "clean burning coal plants". In these plants coal is not burned to CO2 it is reacted to form carbonates. If this technology is prefected and is economic, then it could replace nuclear as an option. Either way we need to stop producing green house gasses and stop burning natural gas and coal using current technology.

While all of this is going on other longer term technologies should be pursued including fusion reactors, the super high density capacitors, solar, wind and other niche technologies.

Of course all this is for not if we don't stop reproducing and overpopulating the world and chopping down all our rain forests. These are the most critical issues followed by a realistic energy policy that is quickly implemented. We have been talking energy policy since 1973 and we still have nothing. There is a real simple answer. Get the price of gasoline up to $6-$8 per gallon and the energy efficient cars will follow. Cars will get lighter and they will have power trains that are two to three times more efficient. The technologies to build these cars already exist and are well understood. They have not been implemented because of cost. But with high gasoline prices they are very economic and could be implemented in less than 10 years.

Energy prizes re-energized

Kevin Secrist, Chico CA. — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:03:43 GMT

The idea of jumpstarting the multibillion dollar oil industry with taxpayer dollars is absurd to me. They already receive too many public dollars in subsidies as it is. Make the market push them to reinvest their huge profits into alternative fuels. If we as a nation of consumers refused for just one day to buy gas, actually car pool, ride a bike, or to take public transportaion, unless the oil industry moved towards alternative fuel they would have to listen or lose profit. If we did it for a week we could make a global statement for change.

If you want to jumpstart an industry, don't allow large corporations to compete and you will be suprized with how many amazing ideas will come out of it through everyday people. Remember the Wright brothers were ordinary bike builders! Henry Ford was a simple farmer with some good ideas!

Energy prizes re-energized

JC, Riverton, CT — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:07:11 GMT

The beauty of owning one's own home is that it frees one from the murderous impulses that arise from too close proximity to those with questionable hygiene, choices in trendy chemical amusement aids, or inferior musical tastes. Communal living is a non-starter.

But yes, absolutely the U.S. should aggressively invest in solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, and nuclear technologies. I agree with Chris that the future of ethanol is probably limited, but the jury is still out on hygrogen.

If the U.S. were to do this, it could become the world leader in those technologies which the rest of the globe will sooner or later adopt or develop for themselves anyway. No need to meddle in middle eastern affairs anymore. Fewer revenues needed to fund questionable military adventures. Less pollution. Jobs for domestic engineers and technicians. What's not to love?

I hate government meddling, but in this case, it will require an Eisenhower highway type project in order to build the necessary infrastructure to handle the switch from pretroleum. The free market isn't going to do it, because the customers just aren't there in enough numbers, and they aren't there because costs are prohibitive and...there's no infractructure, so where do you fill up in the meantime?

Energy prizes re-energized

Alan Boyle — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:24:17 GMT

Rocket scientist Robert Zubrin (a guy not known for his meekness) lays out the case against hydrogen - and in favor of ethanol and methanol - in The New Atlantis:

"The Hydrogen Hoax"
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/15/zubrin.htm

Also, if you haven't seen The New Yorker article about Amory Lovins ("Mr. Green"), you might want to head over to your local library and take a look (sorry, it's not online). Lovins' main argument is that a big part of the solution must be to increase efficiency and lower energy demand (a guy after Chris Eldridge's own heart, I should think). Here's an archived article about Lovins:

"Energy guru sees oil-free world"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6492077/

Energy prizes re-energized

a p garcia — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:40:11 GMT

Hydrogen's problem is "The Hindenburg Syndrome" followed by "The Challenger Syndrome"

Energy prizes re-energized

J Sherwin, N. Nevada — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:56:42 GMT

My Home in Northern Nevada has no furnace. I've lived in it for more than 15 years without a frozen pipe. I do use 1 or 2 electric oil filled radiators for a brief period during cold spells. My hybrid car gets 50+MPG using technology developed last century. I say solar and electric is most economical. I wish my pockets were deeper, I'd build a car that gets at least 100MPG.

Energy prizes re-energized

Peter Alaimo , Phoenix, AZ — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 19:42:17 GMT

We will never get where we need to go as long as we continue to bank on exotic technologies and the greed of Big Energy. We need to break the back of the SUV-McMansion-Sprawl mentality of this country with tax and zoning policies which re-create real cities with real mass transit. The obscene tax subsidies (300 billion dollars in the last transportation bill) of the past century addicted us to the Great God Oil and his wife Infernal Combustion. It's time to put all our effort into breaking that addiction, controlling the greed merchants, and creating a truly sane lifestyle that is urban, efficient, eco-safe, and truly pacific. If we don't, Iraq will not be the last place Americans offer up the blood of their sons and daughters for oil.

Energy prizes re-energized

John Galt — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 21:10:13 GMT

Smokescreens. Wake up, people! If you believe in global warming and if you believe people cause it, then nuke is the way to go for basic energy needs. If you don't believe people cause global warming then coal is the way to go for basic energy needs. Solar doesn't work at night and wind doesn't work when there is no wind. Wake up, people! "Hydrogen" requires basic energy to manufacture it by dissociating water. It is not a "source"! It really is as simple as that.

Energy prizes re-energized

Engineer, Mission Viejo, CA — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:50:24 GMT

So we are talking about two prizes, the Automotive X prize and the H prize. As Alan's link above to Robert Zubrin's paper shows, it is extremely dubious that hydrogen has anything of substance to offer. If ever you get the opportunity to listen to/read an article by a hydrogen supporter, look for these tell-tale signs:

1. Hydrogen is assumed to be the only renewable fuel out there.
2. Pro-hydrogen statements are actually arguments in favor of renewable energy. There is little or nothing that is unique to hygrogen.
3. Anyone who dares question hydrogen's feasibility is accused of being a stooge for Big Oil/status quo.

So, which prize is Congress promoting (in a rare bipartisan effort)? The one that can't work, but sounds impressive, of course!

If only there was a way of keeping Uncle Sam (and our tax dollars) out of this...

Energy prizes re-energized

Jason , Dallas, Texas — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 23:12:04 GMT

Why have we not explored geothermal energy sources more , we have a massive reactor about 3 miles down, that would provide plenty of safe, natural energy? Also what about using the power from lighting bolts from passing storms which are abundent on our planet?

Energy prizes re-energized

Charles Davis, San Diego, CA — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 23:21:31 GMT

Bush should be lynched in a peach tree as a traitor for stalling ethanol. If he spoke from his heart "America is addicted to oil", would he let an addict wait 20 years to remove the drug? Mandate all cars ethanol/gas now. License technology to foreign manufacturers. His Dad was a mole in the government who would rather sell drugs and guns to our enemies. They both think they're cosmopolitan diplomats. They look like cosmopolitan whores instead of honest Americans.

Energy prizes re-energized

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 01:14:24 GMT

Jason, although I'm involved in some 'light' reading regarding photons and waves, I just caught this article on Geothermal energy:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16755646/

and YES, they are finally getting back to looking at it and think it can provide 10% of the nations energy by 2050. Ultimately (I heard on the science channel), EXTREMELY deep geothermal (using state-of-the-art oil drilling tech) could produce something like 100,000 times earth's 'current' demands!

Energy prizes re-energized

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 04:03:47 GMT

The problem in common with all the solutions proffered by the writers so far is that they each require more time to develop - and spread to the "consumer" - than we actually have. A "new" product offered by advertisers (is there any other provider?) is never new but always based upon an older, well-accepted product. Our various writers are extrapolating new solutions out of thin air for the most part. Only the (horror of horrors) governments can solve the problem of global warming. Besides, global warming is real and imminent, and it is an exponential threat, not linear. We haven't much time left, not 2050, not 3000, not this August, as Einstein remarked about nuclear war, but soon.

The best thing we could do is find a way to split water cheaply, use the Hydrogen and release the Oxygen into the atmosphere to balance the Carbon Dioxide. It would take decades to begin to make a difference, perhaps a century, but it took a couple of centuries to reach the imbalance we are experiencing now.

Energy prizes re-energized

James Bowery, Portland, OR — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 04:19:18 GMT

Fusion energy prize legislation was drafted 15 years ago and submitted to Congress by one of the founders of the US Tokamak program, Robert W. Bussard. There is good reason to believe this legislative proposal was a precursor to resurgence of interest in technology prize awards later in the 1990s:

http://www.geocities.com.nyud.net:8080/
jim_bowery/BussardsLetter.html

PS: More recently, Dr. Bussard gave a talk at Google HQ about his currently favorite fusion technology and it has caused some commotion:

http://hardware.slashdot.org/
article.pl?sid=06/11/18/0616205

Energy prizes re-energized

Des Emery — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 02:52:01 GMT

Alan -- MIT has built a superconductor using nanotube technology, combining condenser and battery into a single unit. It can use its charge slowly to power anything, including a vehicle, and can be re-charged when its power is almost gone at a 'service station' and the re-charge it as fast or faster than a 'fill-up' of gasoline.

Service stations will be able to handle more cars more quickly, more cleanly, more quietly than internal combustion engines whether or not those machines are running on partial ethanol and gasoline or some other fuel. I rejoice. We may have time left to save ourselves and everybody else except the big oil companies. Will they let us?

Energy prizes re-energized

Oliver, Edina, Minnesota — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:22:57 GMT

John, I agree that the traditional ideas of solar and wind do have several issues, but nuclear is not the way to go. Nuclear power is just as bad as coal as far as waste goes, if not worse, and even the supposed "clean" nuclear plants are A) a long way off, B) Hideously expensive, and C) not clean. I believe that ocean energy would be better than the alternatives discussed, and several types of ocean power can be used to generate Ammonia fuel or Hydrogen Fuel. Several people to look to on this include William Avery and the NREL.

The main issue is that there will always be a drawback, science has yet to discover a source without one. The question from here is how to minimize those issues and maximize the benefits.

The mainstream is listening-- Debate has been talking about this for the past year.
http://www.nflonline.org/Main/HomePage