The heat given off by electronics, automobile engines, factories and other sources is a potentially huge source of energy, and various technologies are being developed in order to capture that heat, and then convert it into electricity. Thanks to an alloy that was recently developed at the University of Minnesota, however, a step in that process could be saved – the new material is able to convert heat directly into electricity.

The multiferroic alloy, with the catchy name Ni45Co5Mn40Sn10, was created by combining its various elements at the atomic level. Multiferroic materials are known for having unique elastic, magnetic and electric properties, and in the case of this alloy, that takes a form of an usual phase change. When heated, the non-magnetic solid material suddenly becomes a strongly magnetic solid.

In a lab test, upon becoming magnetic, the material absorbed heat in its environment and proceeded to produce electricity in an attached coil. Although some of the heat energy is lost in a process known as hysteresis, the U Minnesota researchers have developed a method of minimizing that energy loss.

“This research is very promising because it presents an entirely new method for energy conversion that’s never been done before,” said aerospace engineering and mechanics professor Richard James, who led the research team. “It’s also the ultimate ‘green’ way to create electricity because it uses waste heat to create electricity with no carbon dioxide.”

The research was recently published in the journal Advanced Energy Materials.

Sourced & published by Henry Sapiecha

Switch off a power of good

seemingly kooky concepts

Michael Liedtke October 13, 2010 – 10:05AM

In its self-proclaimed drive to make the world a better place, Google has immersed itself in far more than internet search and online ads. But driverless cars and a wind energy farm in the Atlantic Ocean?

It may not always be immediately apparent to frustrated investors – they wish management would be more frugal and focus more on the stock price – but there’s usually some calculated logic underlying Google’s unconventional strategy.

Google’s brain trust – founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, along with CEO Eric Schmidt – clearly think differently than most corporate leaders, and may eventually encourage more companies to take risks that might not pay off for years, if ever.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Google has invested $US1.05 million into this scheme – a form of alternative transportation that places people in plastic tubes so that they can cycle to their destination whilst hung upside down.

The time is ripe for long-term thinking, with memories still fresh of the financial meltdown – a byproduct of Wall Street’s demands for companies to deliver ever-higher profits every three months and meet earnings targets set by analysts.

“Everywhere you look in this country, it seems that we are suffering from the consequences of too much short-term thinking,” said longtime Silicon Valley forecaster Paul Saffo, managing director of foresight for Discern Analytics.

“Google doesn’t have this disease,” he said. “It is one of the few lone bright spots we have in that regard.”

Google’s founders have told investors in the past that the company would be willing to finance projects with just a 10 per cent chance of yielding a return of at least $US1 billion. Photo: Frank Maiorana

Even so, it might be difficult to fathom how Google can justify paying for the development of robotic technology that has driven cars thousands of miles on California roads without a major accident and committing potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to help build a wind farm hundreds of miles from the Eastern Seaboard.

With a little imagination, it’s easier to see how Google might benefit. For instance, Saffo surmises that the driverless technology eventually could be implanted into a fleet of vehicles used for car sharing.

Google then could use a camera to take new pictures of streets and highways that appear in its online maps, another example of a service that once seemed like a diversion from its internet search engine but is now an indispensable tool that helps the company sell advertising.

The company announced this week it would buy a 37.5 per cent stake in the Atlantic Ocean wind energy project, investing in a network of deepwater transmission lines to bring power from still-to-be-built offshore wind farms.

That makes more sense when you realise Google already sucks up massive amounts of energy from the power grid and expects to consume even more in the next decade as it opens more datacentres filled with row upon row of computers to run its internet services.

And if the value of renewable energy rises, as many analysts expect, Google eventually could even sell its stake for a tidy profit.

Or it could turn out to be a total bust, something Page and Brin warned potential investors could happen in April 2004 when they laid out their iconoclastic approach to business before Google sold its stock in an initial public offering.

“Our long-term focus may simply be the wrong business strategy,” they warned. “Competitors may be rewarded for short-term tactics and grow stronger as a result. As potential investors, you should consider the risks around our long-term focus.”

The Google founders also told investors that the company would be willing to finance projects with just a 10 per cent chance of yielding a return of at least $US1 billion – bets that seem “very speculative or even strange”.

Google’s transparency about its unorthodox ways may be one reason the company hasn’t been stung yet by an outcry from its shareholders, although most analysts agree the stock price probably would be higher if management were to use some of the company’s $US30 billion in cash to pay a quarterly dividend or buy back shares.

Google stock closed at $US541.39 on Tuesday US time, down 13 per cent for the year and far off its all-time high of nearly $US750 three years ago.

The company’s uninterrupted streak of prosperity since its August 2004 IPO hasn’t hurt, either.

Google can afford to gamble more frequently than most companies because it dominates the internet’s most lucrative market, the ads running alongside search results. And Google has seized on that opportunity in a manner that would make Gordon Gekko proud, beating back its competitors to boost its annual revenue from just $US86 million in 2001 to nearly $US30 billion now.

The company, based in Mountain View, California, began branching out beyond search well before it went public.

It set up an online news section that compiles the day’s top stories in 2002. Just a few months before its August 2004 IPO, Google unveiled a free email service that boasted an unprecedented – and still expanding – amount of space per inbox.

In 2004, it bought an obscure digital mapping service called Keyhole that eventually turned Google into the place to go for directions. Even rival CEOs, such as Yahoo’s Carol Bartz, say it’s the best around.

More recently, Google created a free mobile operating system called Android that now powers millions of smart phones. This month, it’s rolling out technology with Sony that weds traditional television viewing with web surfing.

Google’s expansion into mobile phones and television never seemed like quantum leaps for the company because they are little more than attempts to transplant its advertising model onto other internet-connected screens that attract a lot of eyeballs.

The company also has poured money into building more widely available and faster ways for people to connect to the internet, reasoning that it will make money if more web surfers have the opportunity to use its ubiquitous services.

Schmidt, Google’s CEO, frequently tries to defuse the perception that the company is frivolous. He contends the company’s formula is disciplined: 70 per cent of its resources go to the main search business, 20 per cent to other projects connected to search, and 10 per cent to initiatives that have nothing to do with search.

It’s difficult to argue with the formula so far, said Colin Gillis of the stock market research firm BGC Financial.

“As an analyst, I do hammer them on their [rising] expenses and some of their questionable investments,” he said. “But as a user of all their products, I love them. And from a purely personal perspective, I appreciate that Google is trying to use technology to solve the world’s problems.”

Received & published by Henry Sapiecha

A carbon price might still appear years away, but a voluntary “white certificate” market where corporations and individuals trade the benefits of reduced energy consumption could be in place by July next year. That is one of the key recommendations of the prime minister’s task force on energy efficiency, released last Friday, which calls for something of a culture shock in this country on the way it consumes energy.

The task force said a formal trading scheme should be in place by mid-2012 as one of the key policy platforms to lift the country’s energy efficiency by 30% and a voluntary market where corporations and households could gain benefit from early action could take place as early as July 2011.

The underlying goal of the task force is to replace the mish-mash of ineffective and half-hearted policies with a focused national scheme that would support a trading mechanism with strict national efficiency targets. To date, Australia has implemented less than one fifth of the key energy efficiency recommendations made by the International Energy Authority and trails the OECD so badly that, even if its policy recommendations were implemented, there is no guarantee Australia would be able to make up lost ground. In a world of high energy costs (yes, including Australia) and reduced emissions, that could pose problems.

The task force believes that the trading market would be one of the principal mechanisms that could help cut household energy costs by up to $296 a year from where they would be otherwise, reduce peak energy demand by up to 1400MW below the reference case through to 2020 and save up to $12 billion in avoided energy infrastructure costs.

The scheme would work something like this: The government might set a mandatory obligation for an energy retailer to find 40,000 units of energy efficiency savings a year — and the failure to do so would incur a penalty of $40 a unit.

A householder installing a new heating system that achieves an energy efficiency saving of 10 units would be able to sell those units to the retailer, potentially for up to $400, either directly or through a reduced purchase price from an energy services company.

The task force notes that this would be similar to what occurs for renewable energy through the renewable energy target, where households investing in solar water heaters or small solar power systems can claim renewable energy certificates and sell them to electricity retailers, or installers offer water heaters to householders at a price that is reduced by the value of the certificates.

It would mean that Australia would have three market mechanisms to support the reduction of energy use, the transition to renewable energy and reduced emissions.

The task force suggests that the RET and the energy savings initiative would not be able to achieve the current 2020 emissions reduction target by themselves, but it could better prepare the economy to respond to a carbon price.

“An explicit price on carbon will underpin and catalyse energy efficiency throughout the economy — greatly enhancing the effectiveness of proposals in this report. Energy efficiency policy is an important part of a suite of responses to climate change, but it cannot realistically be expected to do the ‘heavy lifting’ needed to deliver Australia’s greenhouse gas reduction targets.”

Energy efficiency will also help major emitters cope with emission reduction targets. The report notes that smelting and refining group Nyrstar, one of the most vocal critics of the CPRS, had identified energy savings of 11% from the first initiatives spawned from the energy efficiency opportunities program.

If the task force recommendations are adopted, it seems certain that Australian business and households are in for something of a culture shock when it comes to energy consumption, particularly those businesses (and banks) that will only invest in initiatives that increase production and ignore those that could provide a higher rate of return by reducing costs.

The report notes that Australia compares badly with the OECD average on energy intensity, and has done comparatively little in terms of programs and standards, simply because energy has been so cheap and formed such a small part of business and household expenses.

Indeed, it says there has been such limited demand that most Australian financial institutions do not even have the intellectual property and products needed to finance energy efficiency, meaning that few projects that have been proposed have gotten the finance to go ahead.

Because energy costs have been considered so immaterial, company boards have not investigated potentially very profitable energy efficiency options that would deliver a quick payback on investments. Some substantial energy efficiency upgrades that could deliver good rates of return were unable to access capital expenditure budgets as they were dumped in favour of projects that increased production but delivered lower rates of return.

The task force wants businesses to move from a position where energy efficiency is considered to be a useful means of saving money and getting good PR, to becoming part of a company’s core business and fundamental to its competitiveness, productivity and social licence to operate.

All of this will present a challenge to electricity generators and retailers, who have built up large franchises based on the simple concept that selling more electrons and building more power stations means making more money.

The task force says that, if its recommendations are taken up, the gains in energy efficiency and fall in energy consumption would also lead to lower wholesale prices, and lower profits for existing generators — possibly of between $600 million and $1.5 billion over the period 2012 to 2020.

It says, though, that over this time total generator profit is estimated at about $40 billion and “does not represent a loss to the economy”, as there is a countervailing benefit to energy users through lower energy costs. Indeed, it nominates a net benefit to the economy from the scheme of $6.6 billion.

And it notes that some companies have learned to deal with the change and focus on other metrics. The UK retailer E.ON, for instance, now states on its website: “Our business is selling energy. The more energy people use, the more money we make, surely? Except, for a forward-looking energy company with an eye on more than short-term profit, it doesn’t. Our ideal would be to have more customers. All using less energy.”

*This article originally appeared on Climate Spectator

Sourced & published by Henry Sapiecha

]]> http://www.energy-options.info/2010/10/carbon-tax-in-australia/feed/ 0 http://www.energy-options.info/2010/08/peak-loads-drawn-from-power-grids-are-a-concern/ http://www.energy-options.info/2010/08/peak-loads-drawn-from-power-grids-are-a-concern/#comments Fri, 13 Aug 2010 05:50:10 +0000 Editor http://energy-options.info/?p=722
Energy storage system to top up peak electricity supply

The amount of power drawn from the electricity grid can vary greatly at different times of the day. It usually peaks in the early evening for a couple of hours after the mass exodus from school and work, while short-lived spikes are also common after major televised sporting events, during commercial breaks and in the morning hours. This can cause headaches for energy companies as they struggle to match supply with demand. But researchers have now found a way to manage these short-lived draws on the electricity grid far that could halve the fuel needed. Read More

Received & published by Henry Sapiecha

OROVILLE, Calif. (UPI) — A California college says it is set to become the nation’s only grid-positive college, producing more energy from its own on-site solar power than it uses.

Butte College in Oroville, Calif., will add 15.000 solar panels to its existing 10,000 by May 2011 to become the largest solar-producing college in the world, a college release said Wednesday.

“Once this solar project is completed, Butte College will provide enough clean renewable energy to cover all of our electricity needs and generate slightly more than we use — which will be a source of additional revenue for the college,” Dr. Diana Van Der Ploeg, Butte College President, said.

The school’s solar panels will generate more than 6.3 million kilowatt hours per year, enough energy to power more than 9.200 average-sized homes, the release said.

The 15,000 new solar panels will be placed atop rooftops and will create covered parking areas and walkways.

The project will cost $17 million, with $12.65 million coming from federal Clean Renewable Energy Bonds, which are low-interest loans that can be used for clean energy projects.

The college will fund the remainder, up to $4.35 million.
Sourced & published by Henry Sapiecha

Enertrade

Level 10, Comalco Place, 12 Creek Street, Brisbane QLD 4000
GPO BOX10, Brisbane QLD 4001

PH: 07 3331 9900 FAX: 07 3331 9901
Email: enertrade@enertrade.com.au
Website: www.enertrade.com.au

Enertrade owns and operates the North Queensland Gas Pipeline, a gas-fired power station at Barcaldine and purchases electricity from privately owned power stations through Power Purchase Agreements and trades this into the National Electricity Market.

Sourced & published by Henry Sapiecha

PO Box 332, Cooma NSW 2630
PH: 02 6453 2888 FAX: 02 6452 3794
Email: snowyinfo@snowyhyrdo.com.au
Internet: www.snowyhydro.com.au

Sourced & published by Henry Sapiecha

Register Now!